Document type: sessionsPaper

Document ID: t18560514

uri: sessionsPapers/18560514

date: 18560514



SALOMONS, MAYOR.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,

Taken in Short-hand,

BY

JAMES DROVER BARNETT

AND

A LEXANDER BUCKLER ,

Rolls Chambers, 89, Chancery Lane.

VOLUME XLIV.

SESSION VII. TO SESSION XII.

LONDON:

GEORGE HEBERT , 88, CHEAPSIDE.

WILLIAM TYLER , PRINTER, BOLT-COURT, FLEET STREET.

1855-6.

LIST OF JURORS .

First Jury.

Thomas Mears

George Burdon

Henry Norman

Alfred Webb Miles

Joseph Baker

Henry Augustus Bedwell

William Cox Bennett

Charles Powers

George Butterfield

Henry Peat

Gilbert Gray Manson

William Beavers

Second Jury.

Henry Stephen Matthewmam

Peter Steele

Vaughan Craddock

Samuel Mullett

Charles Dyson

John Over

William Nash

William Fletcher

Amherst Hawker Renton

George Richmond

William Mason

James Olivier

Third Jury

Thomas Knight

Richard Dumbrell

William Mavor

William Newman

George Miller

William Fletcher

George Oakeshott

Charles Bates

William Ecoleston

Samuel Mullett

Jain Over

William Nash

Fourth Jury.

John Page

John Prosser

Thomas Payne

Thomas Murray

Richard Dennis

James Hicks Gower

William Owen

Charles William Barber

James Biddle

James Rivett

James Olivier

Henry Ricketts

Fifth Jury.

Charles Ogle

William Martin

William Eccleston

George Oakshott

Jacob Ash

John Beard

Henry Pratt

Thomas Holmes

Jacob Mansell

George Mills

William Nicholson

Robert Mizen

Sixth Jury.

George Burdon

Joseph Clitherow

Henry Parsons

Henry Norman

Charles Powers

Edmund Peckover

George Mason

George Butterfield

James Avery

John Bruce

Henry Augustus Bedwell

James Rivett

Seventh Jury

Alfred John Mellish

John Mason

Alfred Nash

John Brazier

Edward Ryde

James Batchelor

Francis Reeves

Alfred Webb Miles

John William Beaver

Gilbert Gray Hanson

Charles Dyson

Joseph Raymont

Eighth Jury.

James Moorhouse

Samuel Barnett

William Belton

Joseph Clitherow

Robert Medway

Henry Pardon

William Cox Bennett

Jeremiah Ricketts

Vaughan Prescott

George Butterfield

Peter Steele

James Butler

THE

WHOLE PROCEEDINGS

On the Queen's Commission of the Peace,

OYER AND TERMINER, AND GAOL DELIVERY,

FOR

The City of London,

AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND THE PARTS OF, THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION

OF THE

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

Together with the ease of "WILLIAM PALMER," removed from the county of Stafford, wider the provisions of 19th Vict., c. 16.

HELD ON MONDAY, APRIL 7TH, 1856, AND FOLLOWING DATE.

Before the Right Hon. DAVID SALOMONS , Lord Mayor of the City of London; the Right Hon. John Lord Campbell, Lord Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench; Sir Edward Hall Alderson, Knt., one of the Barons of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer; Sir Cresswell Cresswell, Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas: John Humphery, Esq.; Sir James Duke, Bart, M. P.; Thomas Farn-comb, Esq.; Thomas Sidney, Esq.; and Sir Francis Graham Moon, Bart., Aldermen of the said City: The Right Hon. James Archibald Stuart Wortley, Q. C., M. P., Recorder of the said City: Thomas Farn-comb Esq; Sir Robert Walter Garden, Knt.; David Williams Wire, Esq F. R. S; William Cubitt, Esq.; William Lawrence, Esq.; and Edward Eagleton, Esq., Aldermen of the said City: Russell Gurney, Esq., Q. C., Common Serjeant of the said City; and Michael Prendergast Esq., Q. C., Judge of the Sheriffs' Court: Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery of Newgate, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.

RICHARD HARTLEY KENNEDY , Esq., Ald.

WILLIAM ANDERSON ROSE , Esq., Ald.

Sheriffs.

DAVID HENRY STONE , Esq.

JAMES ANDERSON ROSE , Esq.

Under-Sheriffs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT .

SALOMONS, MAYOR SEVENTH SESSION .

A star (*) denotes that prisoners has been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—an obelisk (†) that they are known to be the associates of bad characters.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES .

OLD COURT .— Wednesday, May 14 th; Thursday , 15 th; Friday ,16 th; Saturday ,11 th; Monday , 13 th; Tuesday , 20 th; Wednesday , 21 st; Thursday , 22 nd; Friday , 23 rd; Saturday , 24 th; Monday , 26 th; and Tuesday, May 27 th , 1856.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT —The Right Hon the LORD MAYOR; Lord CAMPBELL ; Mr. Baron ALDERSON ; Mr. Justice CRESSWELL ; Mr. Ald. HUMPHERY ; Mr. Ald. SIDNEY ; Sir FRANCIS GRAHAM MOON , Bart., Ald.; MR. RECORDER ; Mr. Ald, FINNIS ; Sir ROBERT WALTER CARDEW , Knt., Ald.: Mr. Ald. WIRE ; Mr. Ald. CUBITT ; and Mr. COMMON SERJEANT

Before Lord Chief Justice Campbell.

490. WILLIAM PALMER was indicted for the wilful murder of John Parsons Cook : he was also charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with a like offence.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, MR. EDWIN JAMES , Q. C., MR. BODKIN , MR. WELSBY , and MR. HUDDLESTON . conducted the Prosecution; and MR. SERJEANT. SHEE, MR. GROVE , Q. C., MR. GRAY , and MR. KENEALEY . conducted the Defence.

ISHMAEL FISHER . I am a wine merchant, residing at No. 4, Victoria-street, Holborn. I am in the habit of attending races, and betting occa sionally on races—I knew the deceased, John Parsons Cook—I had known him, I should think, about two years—I was at the Shrewsbury races in Nov., 1855—I remember the race for the Shrewsbury Handicap—a mare, called "Polestar," the property of Mr. Cook, won that race—it was on Tuesday, 13th Nov.—I saw Mr. Cook on that day on the course—he then appeared quite as well as he had been for any time that I had known him—I had been in the habit of seeing him at different races—while I was at Shrewsbury I was stopping at the Raven Hotel—I know Palmer the prisoner, very well—I have known him, I should think, about the same time I have known Cook, or perhaps a little more—Cook and Palmer were also stopping at the Raven Hotel—they occupied the adjoining room to mine—there was only a wooden partition between my room and their's—they

occupied a sitting room jointly—I saw them there together—between 11 and 12 o'clock, on the Wednesday night, I went into their sitting room—I thete found Mr. Cook, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Myatt; I believe ne is a saddler, at Kugeley—he is a friend of Palmer's—they each appeared to have some grog before them—I observed that Cook had a glass of brandy and water before him—he asked me to sit down, and I did so—Cook asked Palmer to have some more brandy and water—Palmer said, "I shall not have any more till you have drunk yours"—Cook on that said, "Oh, I will drink mine"—he then took Up his glass and drank it at a draught, or nearly so; he might have made two draughts of it—he drank it off immediately—after he had drunk it, he said there was something in it—he said that within a minute after he had drunk it—he said, "It burns my throat dreadfully," or some such words—on his saying that, Palmer got up, and took up the glass—he sipped up what was left in the glass, and said, "There is nothing in it"—I should think there was certainly not more than a teaspoonful left in the glass—Cook had apparently emptied the glass—in the mean time a Mr. Read, whom I knew, came in—he is a wine merchant—he attends races—Palmer handed the glass to him, and asked him if he thought there was anything in it—it was handed to me also—Mr. Read and I each said, the glass being so empty, we could not recognize anything—I said I thought there was rather a strong scent on it—I did not make any other remark, only that I could not detect anything besides brandy—I could not say there was anything besides brandy.

COURT . Q. Did you taste it? A. There was no chance of tasting it—I did not put it to my lips—the glass was completely drained at the time—I gave my opinion about it from the smell.

MR. JAMES . Q. Shortly after this did Cook retire from the room? A. He did—I should say that was within ten minutes after—he came back, and called me from the room—I went with him into my own sitting room—he was very ill—he told me he had been very sick, and asked me to take his money—he stated what he had been suffering from—( MR. SERJEANT SHEE . submitted that no such statement was receivable. LORD CAMPBELL . was of opinion, that anything stated as to the effect produced upon him by what he had taken was admissible )—he said he had been very sick—he thought that d—d Palmer had dosed him—he handed me over some money on that occasion—it was over 700 l .; I cannot remember exactly; between 700 l . and 800 l .—it was all in bank notes—he gave it me to take care of it—he did not say until when I was to take care of it—Palmer and Cook did not sleep in the same room.

Q. After he had given you this money, did you see him again suffering that night from sickness? A. Oh yes; he was seized immediately again, in my sitting room, with vomiting—that was after he had given me the money—he retired to some place of retirement, and came back to me again—he again explained to me from what he had been suffering, and asked me to go to his bedroom—he repeated what he had said before, that he had been again very sick—I went Up to Ms bedroom with him; and a Mr. Jones, a stationer, who was there, went with me to his bedroom—while I was there he vomited again violently—foe was so ill, that I thought it right to send for a doctor, Mr. Gibson—Mr. Gibson came and attended him—we remained with him till 2 o'clock, or a little after—I went for Mr. Gibson a second time—I should think it must have been about half past 12, or a quarter to 1 o'clock, that Mr. Gibson was sent for first, and about twenty minutes afterwards we sent for him again, or sent for some second medicine.

COURT . When did you send for him the second time? A. About 1 I o'clock, as near as I remember.

MR. JAMES . Q. Was he more composed afto he had seen the doctor, and taken the mediciue? A. Yes.

COURT . Q. Did Mr. Gibson give him some medicine? A. He sent him some medicine, but he did not administer it himself—he lent him some medicine which he took—we gave him the medicine I mean Mr. Jones and myself.

MR. JAMES . Q. You gave him the medicine which Mr. Gibson had sent? A. Yes—I saw Palmer next morning; about 10 o'clock, in my own sitting room—he was there when I got down stairs—I found him there—he said that Cook had been stating that he had given him something last night, that he had been putting something in his brandy, or something to that effect; "but," he said, "I never play such tricks with people; I can tell you what he was; he was d—d drunk"—I should say he was certainly not drunk—I had not seen him at dinner on the previous evening; it was some time after his dinner—from what I saw of him, he was certainly sober.

COURT . Q. Was he affected by liquor? A. Not at all approaching drunkenness.

MR. JAMES . Q. On this same morning, did Cook come into your bedroom after he had got up? A. Yes, he came into my bedroom before I left my room—he was looking very ill, but was much better—I gave him back; his money—I saw him on the race course at Shrewsbury on that Thursday, I think about 3 o'clock—he looked very ill then—I had always been in the habit of settling Cook's bets for him; I mean when he did not settle them himself—I had been in the habit of paying and receiving for him at Tattersall's and other places—I saw Cook's betting book in his hand at Shrewsbury—I should say it was a little more than half the size of this book ( producing a small one ,) the same kind of book—I cannot remember what colour it was, but, as near as I can remember, it was very near this colour—on Saturday, 17th, I paid to Mr. Pratt, by Mr. Cook's direction, a sum of 200 l ., by a cheque—the account for what he had won or lost at Shrewsbury would, in the ordinary course, have been settled at Tattersall's on the following Mon day, the 19th—as his agent, I expected to have to settle that account—I advanced the 200 l . on the Saturday to pay Mr. Pratt—I knew that he had won at Shrewsbury considerably—If I had had his account to settle, in the ordinary course, on the Monday, at Tattersalls, I should have been entitled to deduct the 200 l . that I had advanced on his account to Mr. Pratt—that was the course of dealing between us—I did not settle that account and, consequently, could not repay myself the advance.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJENT SHEE . Q. How long had you known Cook? A. About two years—I had known Palmer little longer—knew that they were a good deal connected in racing transactions—I do not remember settling any transaction for Cook in which he and Palmer were jointly interested—I do not know whether they owned any horses jointly; they appeared to be very intimate, they were a good deal together, generally staying at the same hotels—I was not at the Worcester meeting—I knew that Cook won considerably at Shrewsbury—I knew thai Polestar was his mare—I do not know whether Palmer won—I cannot say at what hour the races began on the Tuesday, they generally begin about 2 o'clock, or earlier—I should think Polestar ran perhaps an hour after the races com menced, but as for the time I win not undertake to say.

COURT . Q. Polestar would ran about 3 o'clock, then? A. I should imagine so.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Did you see Cook on the coarse after the race? A. I did—he appeared very much elated and gratified—the mare won the race pretty easy—when I went into the room in the evening in which Cook, Palmer, and Myatt were, I remember seeing a glass before Mr. Palmer, and before Mr. Cook—I could not answer for Myatt's glass, he was sitting in a corner by the fire place—I believe there was a decanter on the table—I do not know whether there was more than one, I think not—I did not observe the glasses sufficiently to see whether both had been drinking—Cook asked me to sit down, and he asked me to take something—I believe directly I sat down there was some more brandy ordered—I do not think I took any, I do not remember drinking any—I cannot say positively—I was not tipsy—I do not think I drank anything, I would not swear I did not—I like brandy and water very well—I am a wine merchant, I should be a good judge of it by the smell, and believe I am—when I had smelt the glass, I said that it had a strong smell about it, but I thought there was nothing in it except brandy—the glass was so perfectly empty, it had been so completely drained, there was very little to smell in it—I counted the money—I had been at the Unicorn that evening, I should think that was quite an hour before this occurred, before I went into the room, perhaps more—I had dined at the Raven, we generally dine about 6 o'clock—I should think it was about 6 o'clock, or between 6 and 7 o'clock, most likely—I cannot say whether Cook dined there—I do not remember seeing him that afternoon, till I saw him at the Unicorn.

Q. Do you know that Palmer left Shrewsbury immediately after the races? A. There was a report of that kind—I do not know it—I did not see him any more after the races that day—I saw Cook and Palmer too at the Unicorn on the Wednesday night, before I saw them at the Kaven—I think that was about 9 o'clock, or between 9 and 10 o'clock—I cannot say whether he was drinking there—I merely looked into the room and stepped back again—I saw Mr. Saunders, the trainer, in the room, with Mr. Palmer, Mr. Cook, and a lady—I do not know whether they had glasses and drink before them.

Q. Do you know whether it happened to a good many persona to be ill at Shrewsbury on the Tuesday or Wednesday? A. No, I do not know that it did, I did not hear of it, I had a friend who was rather poorly there, but a different kind of illness to Mr. Cook's, not at all serious—I do not know that many people connected with the races felt ill, and complained of illness—I think the Wednesday was rather a dull day; it was damp under foot, but I do not know that it rained, I forget—I saw Cook about the race course several times on the Wednesday—I remember that the weather was rather cold and damp on the Thursday, but whether it rained or not I would not swear—I think we had some rain on the Thursday, but I would not swear—I do not know whether Cook and Palmer breakfasted together on the Thursday morning, but I believe they did—I cannot say that I saw them together on the course on the Thursday—I do not know whether they left Shrewsbury together—on 17th Nov. I received a letter from Cook—the solicitor has it—this is it—it is dated Rugeley, 16th Nov., 1855—( read : "Dear Usher,—It is of very great importance to both Mr. Palmer and myself that a sum of 500 l . should be paid to Mr. Pratt, of Queen-street, Mayfair, to-morrow, without fail; 300 l . has been sent up to night, and if you will be kind enough to pay the other 200 l . to morrow, on receipt of this, you will greatly oblige me; I will settle it on Monday, at Tattersall's. I am much better. Yours, J. Parsons Cook")

COURT . Q. That was the 200 l . you were to pay to Pratt? A. Yes; I received it at No. 4, Victoria-street, London.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. After baring told me that you received that letter, do not you know they had for some time before been connected in racing transactions? A. I considered they were; but I had no proof of that.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Am I to understand you to say that they were partners, or anything of that sort? A. I did not say so; I did not intend to say so—I had no knowledge of any interruption of their intimacy—I could always tell that Cook had no great respect for Mr. Palmer, though he was connected with him—I have heard him speak rather disrespectfully of him—it was the Handicap race that Polestar won—I know that Palmer had a horse there, called Chicken—Chicken ran that day, the Thursday—she lost—I heard that Palmer had bets on that race—Cook was not more elated at winning the race than persons generally are whose horses win—I was staying at the Raven—I am not sure that I took any brandy and water at that house.

ROBERT JONES . I am a law stationer, in Carey-street I was at Shrews bury bury races last Nov.—I lodged at the Raven—I got there on the Monday night—on that night Cook supped there with me and Mr. Herring, Mr. Fisher, and a person of the name of Grabatt—he appeared well—I saw him on the Tuesday, and on the Wednesday again, and he appeared quite well on those days—I and Mr. Fisher went to the Raven between 11 and 12 o'clock on Wednesday night—Read was also with us there in the same room—Cook came into my room, and invited me into his; I went there and found, among others, Mr. Palmer there—I did not go into the room with Mr. Fisher and Mr. Read, I went up stairs first, and then went in and found Palmer and other persons—after the party broke up, Fisher came to me and told me something about Cook, in consequence of which I went up into his bedroom and found him complaining of a burning in his throat, and saw him vomiting—some medicine was brought, some pills and a draught—Cook refused to take the pills, and in consequence of that I went to the medical man, I do not know his name—I got some liquid medicine which I brought back, and gave a portion of it to Cook, about a teaspoon full, I think; I put a small quantity in a wine glass, and added some water in it—he was then in bed—after twenty minutes or a quarter of an hour he took the pills also—I saw him again next morning early, between 6 and 7 o'clock; he was still in bed, and told me he felt easier and better than on the pre vious night—he looked pale being in bed.

GEORGE READ . I live in Victoria-street, near Farringdon-market, and keep a house there frequented by sporting men. I was acquainted with Cook and with Palmer—I saw them at Shrewsbury races in Nov.—I was there on the Tuesday of the race, and saw them both on the course—I saw Cook more than once on the course, and had one bet with him—he appeared on that Tuesday in his usual health, as well as I have always seen him—I was on the course on the following day, Wednesday, and saw him there then in apparently the same state of health—I stopped at the Raven—on that Wednesday night I went into the room where Palmer and Cook were sit ting, at the Raven, between the hours of 11 and 12 o'clock—there was another gentleman in the room, and I think there was more than one—one gentleman was sitting on the sofa, and I saw Mr. Cook standing up, and Mr. Palmer standing up—it was merely a practice to go into the room before we went to bed, we were in adjoining rooms, and we went to have a

glass of brandy and water before we retired to refit—the brandy and water was there before I went in—while I was there, I saw that Cook was in pain, that was almost immediately after I entered; I did not ask him any question, I heard him say to Mr. Palmer that there was something in the brandy and water, he was addressing us all—I had not observed him drink any of the brandy and water before he made that observation—Mr. Palmer then handed me the glass to taste it, but there was nothing in it—I said, "What is the use of handing the glass when it is empty?"—I believe Cook left the room, I did not see anything more of him that night—I saw him about 11 o'clock on the following morning, he was up and in the sitting room—he did not make any complaint to me direct, I heard him say to Mr. Herring or Mr. Howard, that he was very ill.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. That he wad very ill, or had been? A. That he was very ill—on Tuesday he was as well as I have always seen him—I should consider that he was in a delicate state of health—he had a pallid complexion—he was never, to my knowledge, in the habit of complaining that he was unwell.

COURT . A. You had some of the brandy and water? A. I had; it did not disagree with me.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Where was your brandy and water got from! A. From the hotel, below—there was another decanter sent for while I was in the room, it is not likely that we should have taken it from that—it was brought in by the waiter—Cook was rather a delicate man in appearance—I never knew anything specific the matter with him, all I mean to say is, that he had the appearance of not being a strong man—I should think he attended every race regularly—in that pursuit he was exposed a good deal to the open air, like the rest of us—I have never known him to be prevented by illness from attending on that pursuit.

WILLIAM SCAIFE GIBSON . I am an assistant to Mr. Heathcote, a surgeon, at Shrewsbury. On 14th Nov. I was sent for to the Raven Hotel, Shrews bury—I got there I suppose between 12 and 1 o'clock at night—I saw Mr. Cook in his bedroom, he was not in bed—he complained of pain in his stomach, and heat in his throat, and he likewise told me that he thought he had been poisoned—I felt his pulse, it was about ninety—I looked at his tongue, and it was perfectly clean—he appeared very much distended about the abdomen—I recommended him an emetic, and he said he could make himself sick with warm water—I sent the waitress for some warm water, and three quarters of a pint was brought—I recommended him a feather, and he said that he could make himself sick with the handle of a tooth brush, which he did—he drank the whole of the water—I noticed what came from him, it was perfectly clean and clear—I told him I would send him some medicine—I sent him two pills and a draught by Read—the pills were compound rhubarb and about three grains of calomel—it is in the Pharmacopœia—I sent directions that the draught was to be taken about twenty minutes afterwards—that was composed of mistura sennacum, that is an infusion of senna, what we call black draught—I afterwards, that same night, saw Mr. Jones—that could not have been much more than half an hour after I had given the pills and draught to Bead—I gave Mr. Jones some medicine for him, an anodyne draught and anti-spasmodic draught; that was divided into two draughts—Mr. Heathcote saw him that evening, but I did not see him after the time I was there.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Did you form an opinion of what was the matter with him? A. I went to work, and treated it as if he

had taken poison—I took him At his word—I noticed nothing in what he vomited up—he had pain, which is a symptom of having taken poison—that is not very uncommon—he appeared a little excited, but appeared to know what he was doing very well, and what he wan saying, and the idea of taking the poison would have some effect on the brain—by saying that he appeared a little excited, I do not mean that he appeared a little tipsy, but excited by drink only—the brain was stimulated with the brandy and water—in my judgment, what I prescribed for him was a good thing, according to the circumstances, if he had taken poison.

Q. Would not it have been better to get it up at oncet? A. Well, he threw up all the warm water—I gave him a good deal, three quarters of a pint, I thought that cleansed his stomach—I thought that would be an additional remedy, on account of his bowels being so distended—I saw nothing like bile in the basin, but on the edge of the basin I did, which he must have thrown up before, not at the time.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. What quantity? A. About the size of a pea—the water he threw off while I was there was perfectly clear—his tongue was perfectly clean, but in a bilious attack, if the stomach had been wrong any time, it would have been this colour ( mahogany. )

ELIZABETH MILLS . I was chambermaid at the Talbot Arms, Rugeley, in Nov. last—I had been about two years in that service—I know the prisoner—I did not know that he was in practice, but he was considered a medical man—he was in the habit of coming to the Talbot Arms—I knew Mr. Cook who died there—he came there on Thursday, 15th Nov., between 0 and 10 o'clock at night—the prisoner, I believe, came with him—they came in a fly—he retired to rest that night between 10 and 11 o'clock, about half past 10, perhaps—he complained that he had been poorly at Shrewsbury, and of feeling poorly then—I do not remember seeing Palmer after he get out of the fly—on the following morning, Friday, I took Mr. Cook up seme hot water, about 12 o'clock, and I think it was about I when he went out—he then appeared poorly; he felt no worse, he said, but he was not well—he came home that night to the Talbot Arms about 10 o'clock, and went to bed about half an hour afterwards, about half past 10—I asked him if he felt any worse than what he did when we went out—he said he felt no worse, and that he had been dining at Mr. Palmer's—he was perfectly sober—he asked me for an extra piece of candle, as he was going to read—I saw no more of him that night—on Saturday morning Palmer came over—I do not know exactly at what time, it might be perhaps about 8 o'clock—he lives opposite the Talbot Arms—I do not know whether Cook had sent for him—Palmer ordered a cup of coffee for Mr. Cook—he did not order it in our kitchen, I believe he ordered it of me—I believe I gave it to Mr. Cook, Palmer was then in the room—I took it up to the bedroom—Palmer was in Cook's bedroom—I did not see Cook drink it, I left it there in Cook's hands, and went down stairs—it might be an hour, or it might be a couple of hours afterwards, that I went up and found that it had been vomited into the utensil—I observed it in the chamber utensil, which was on the little table by the side of the bed, which he had on purpose that he could put his arm and reach it himself—I cannot remember that I spoke to Palmer at all about this now, or he to me—I did not see the toast and water in the bedroom that morning, or during that day—I did not observe a jug there; a jug was sent down to me from Cook's room for some fresh toast and water, but it was net given to me—I first saw that jug on Saturday night, as late as 10 o'clock—the waitress, I believe, brought it down for me to make some fresh toast and water—her

name is Laviuia Barnes—she laid that she had thrown pat the crust of bread that was in the jug—that jug did not belong to the Talbot Arms, I am quite sure of that—I cannot remember how often, to my knowledge, Palmer was in Cook's room on that Saturday, he might come and go without my seeing him—I saw him perhaps four or five times on that Saturday in Cook's room, or going to the door, or from the door of the room—I heard Palmer tell Cook that he would send him some broth over, and I saw some broth in the kitchen, which they said was sent over by Mrs. Rowley—that broth had not been made in the Talbot Arms—as soon as it came my fellow servant, Lavinia Barnes, took it up—ten minutes or a quarter of an hour after the broth had been sent over, I met Palmer on the stain; he was coming up, and I was going down—he asked me, had Mr. Cook had his broth—I told him that I was not aware that there was any come for him—while that conversation was going on, Lavinia Barnes came forward out of the commercial room, I believe she had heard what had passed between Palmer and me—she said that she had taken the broth up to Mr. Cook as soon as it came in, and he refused to take it, saying that it would not stay on his stomach—Palmer said, "You must go and fetch the broth, he must have it"—I fetched it, and took it into Mr. Cook's room—I cannot remem ber whether I gave it to him, or to Mr. Cook, but I know I left the two together—I am quite sure that that was some of the same broth which had been sent over—it had been brought down stairs and set on the table, and never moved, I am quite sure—an hour or two afterwards I went up, and found the broth in the chamber utensil; it had been vomited—on that evening, about 6 o'clock, some barley water was made in the hotel for Cook, and I took it up to him—I cannot remember whether Palmer was there when I took it up—I do not know whether it stayed on his stomach or not; sometimes it would, and sometimes it would not—some arrowroot was made in the kitchen about 8 o'clock on Saturday, and I took it up—I do not remember who was there then—I took it up, but do not remember who was there then—I do not remember whether Palmer was there—I do not positively remember whether that was retained on Cook's stomach—Mr. Bamford was called in; Saturday, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, was the first time I saw him—he might have been there some time the day before, but I do not know—on Sunday morning I went into Mr. Cook's room, between 7 and 8 o'clock—Mr. Jeremiah Smith had slept in his room that night—he is a lawyer, and is called Jerry Smith, the lawyer; I have seen him with Palmer—I asked Cook if he felt any worse—he said that he felt pretty comfortable, and had slept well since 12 o'clock—on the Sunday a large breakfast cup of broth was brought over by Charles Hawley, I believe—I did not see him, but I heard it was him—I do not know who he is, but he has something to do with the church—I did not see it brought over, I heard it—I took some of it up to Mr. Cook's room in the same cup in which it was brought—it was brought over hot, ready for drinking—I took it up in the same cup, exactly as it came over—I tasted it before I took it up to Mr. Cook's room—I suppose I drank about two table spoonfuls, the effect of that was to make me sick in about half an hour, or it might be an hour—I was sick violently all the afternoon till about 5 o'clock—I was obliged to retire to my bedroom, and go to bed—I vomited a great many times—I was quite well before that—I felt perfectly well during the morning, and had no nausea—I had taken nothing to disagree with me—I had had my usual breakfast—this was before my dinner—about a quarter before 6 o'clock I went down to my tea—I saw Mr. Cook in the evening, after I had to some extent recovered—I did not perceive that he was any worse that evening—with the

exception of his vomiting the broth, he seemed in good spirits—I have no reason to believe that he had any bowel complaint—there was a discharge from the bowels on Saturday, about once perhaps—the illness was after taking the broth, and those things that were sent to him—the latest hour that I saw him on Sunday night might be about 10 o'clock—it might be after when he retired to rest, it could not be much after—on Monday morn ing, between 7 and 8 o'clock, I went into his room; I took him up his breakfast, a cup of coffee—I do not think I remained with him while he drank it—he did not vomit that—Palmer had been there that morning at a quarter past 7 o'clock, or it might be about 7—I do not know whether he saw Cook that morning, but I saw him coming down stairs, as though he had been to see Mr. Cook—Mr. Cook got up on that Monday about 1 o'clock—I am not aware that Palmer came again during that day, from a quarter past 7 o'clock, when I saw him coming down stairs—Cook appeared a great deal better on that Monday, he washed and dressed himself, and shared—he said that he felt better, only exceedingly weak—he dressed himself entirely, just as if he was going out—Mr. Ashmal, the jockey, came to see him that evening, and Ash mat's brother, and Mr. Saunder, his trainer—he had no other visitors that day that I am aware of—I gave him some arrowroot that day, as soon as he got up, and some dry toast; that remained on his stomach—I believe he also had a cup of coifee that day, but I do not remember when it was, perhaps between 4 and 5 o'clock—I saw him during the afternoon, he continued better, he sat up till about 4 o'clock, and then went to bed—I think it was between 9 and 10 o'clock that evening that I again saw Palmer, he went and sat down in Cook's room—I do not remember whether I left Palmer in Cook's room when I retired to bed, it might be then about half past 10 o'clock—I did not see Cook again till about a quarter before 12—I remember something being given to me about 8 o'clock that night by Miss Bond, the housekeeper, which appeared to be a pill box, to take up stairs to Cook's room—I took it up to Cook's room, and placed it on the dressing table—it appeared to be a round pill box, and it was wrapped up in white paper—(I had not then seen Palmer since the morning)—I left it there, and retired to rest; Palmer was then sitting down by the fire—I went to bed between 10 and 11 o'clock—the waitress, Lavinia Barnes, called me up; it might be at a quarter or 10 minutes before 12 o'clock—I did not look, but I should fancy from the time the clock struck that it might be that—while I was dressing I heard violent screams twice from Cook's room—my room is not exactly over his, but it is up above on another story—I went down to Cook's room, and as soon as I entered I found him sitting up in bed; he desired me to fetch Mr. Palmer directly—I told him that Mr. Palmer was sent for, walked to his bed side, and found the pillow on the floor—there was a mould candle burning—I picked up the pillow, and asked him if he would lay his head down—he was at that time sitting up beating the bed clothes like this with his arms and hands, as quick as he could, with both his hands and arms stretched out in this form—having picked the pillow up, and asked him to lay his head down, he said, "I cannot lie down, I shall suffocate if I lie down; oh! fetch Mr. Palmer," very loud he called out—I did not observe his legs then—I observed that his body, and head, and neck were moving, there was a sort of jumping or jerking about his head and neck—sometimes he would throw his head down on the pillow, arid raise himself up again—the jumping or jerking was in all his body—his breathing was very bad, and the balls of hoth his eyes very much projected—I observed a gasping when he spoke;

it was difficult for him to speak, he was so short of breath—he screamed again three or four times while I was in the room, that was while that violence was—he was moving and knocking about all the time—he called aloud, "Murder!" twice—after the heating had gone on with his hands and arms, he asked me to rub one hand, and I found it stiff—it was the left hand.

COURT . Q. Just describe what you mean by "stiff"? A. It appeared to be stretched out and stiff—they did not move—the hand was like this ( half shut )—it seemed to be stiff all the way up his arm.

MR. JAMES . Q. What effect had your nibbing upon it? A. I did not rub it so very long—as soon as he thought I had rubbed it sufficiently, he thanked me, and I did not rub it again—I did not perceive that the stiffness had gone—Palmer was in the room after I rubbed his hand—while the jerking of the body was going on, Cook was quite conscious, and I noticed him to twitch while I was rubbing his hand—his arms seemed to twitch, and the body also—he seemed to twitch altogether—while this was going on he seemed to know all that was going forward—when Palmer came in be recognised him—he was throwing himself about the bed, and he said, "Oh, doctor, I shall die!"—he addressed Palmer when he said that—Palmer's reply was, "Oh, my lad, you won't"—Palmer left, to fetch something—I do not know exactly what he said, or what he did, but he seemed just to look at him, and then he went and asked me to stay by the bed side with him—he returned very shortly, I should think, as quick as he could possibly go over, I should think two minutes—I did not continue rubbing his hands—I only stood by the bed side—when Palmer came back he brought some pills, and he gave him something else, but whether he brought it with him I do not know—he gave him a draught in a wine glass; first the pills, and then the draught—when he gave him the pills, Cook said that they stuck fast in his throat, and he could not swallow them, and Mr. Palmer desired me to give him a teaspoon full of toast and water—I did so, and he took it—when I gave it to him from the spoon, his body was still jumping and jerking—he snapped, in a sort of snapping way, at the spoon, with his head and neck, and the spoon was fast between his teeth—it was difficult to get it back—he seemed to bite it very hard—his head and neck moved forward when he snapped—it was as if this was the spoon; there ( Snapping with her teeth at a quill )—the water went down his throat, and washed the pills down—Mr. Palmer handed him a draught then from a wine glass, something liquid—it was about three parts full of a dark, thick, heavy looking nature—he drank that—he snapped at the glass in the same manner as he did at the spoon—it seemed an involuntary motion—he seemed as if he could not exactly control himself—he swallowed it, and it was vomited up immediately into the chamber utensil, which I held—it was placed on the bed, and I supported his head—it smelt like opium—Palmer said that he hoped the pills had stayed, or he hoped that the pills had not returned, and he searched for the pills with a quill off the dressing table, and said, "I cannot find the pills;" but he desired me to take it away, and to pour it carefully, and see whether I could see the pills—I did so, but could not see the pills at all—I emptied the contents of the utensil, and brought it back—he seemed to be more easy then—that attack lasted, I should think, half an hour, or it might be more, from the time I went into the room when he was beating the bedclothes to the time that he got more easy—he then got more com posed—during the whole of that time he appeared to be quite conscious—he appeared to know all that was going forward—I recollect his asking Palmer

to feel his heart—that wag after he got more composed—he was lying down more quiet, and desired Palmer to come and feel how his heart beat, or something of that sort—Palmer went to his bed side, and I do not know whether he pressed his hand to his heart, or the side of his face—he said that it was all right, or something of that sort, quite a slight remark—left him that morning about 3 o'clock—he was not asleep when I left him—I left Palmer in the room with him—Mr. Cook was dozing when I left him, but I learned next morning that he was not, for he told me that he heard me go out—I left Palmer in the easy chair, asleep, I believe, and I retired to the next room, close to his door—I saw Cook again about 6 o'clock on the Tuesday morning—I said to him, "Is Mr. Palmer gone?"—he said, "Yes, he left at a quarter before 5 o'clock"—I asked him how he felt, or whether he had been any worse—he said, no, he had been no worse since I had left him in the morning—I said, "You were asleep when I went out"—he said, "No; I heard you go"—he asked me if I had ever seen any one suffer or in such agony as he was last night—I said, "No, I never have"—he said he should think I should not wish ever to see any one like that again—I said, "What do you think was the cause of all that illness, Mr. Cook?"—he said, "Some pills Palmer gave me at half past 10 o'clock"—I do not think any thing more was said then—I think I left him—I asked him, would he have a cup of coffee, or if he would take anything; and he said, no, not then—I do not remember seeing Palmer on Tuesday morning, until he was sent for—I met him on the stairs that morning, I did not see him in the room—I did not observe any jerkings or convulsions about Cook when I saw him on the Tuesday morning—he seemed quite composed and quiet—I noticed that his eyes looked very wild—I observed none of the beating or convulsion—his body seemed to be quite quiet—there was no mgving about the body, but the eyes looked very wild; he appeared as if he wished to settle down and be quiet—about 12 o'clock he rang his bell, and desired me to send Boots over to ask Mr. Palmer if he might have a cup of coffee—the Boots returned, and said he might have a cup of coffee, and Mr. Palmer would be over immediately—I took the coffee up—that was a little after 12 o'clock—Palmer was then in Cook's room—I gave the coffee to Palmer—I gave it into his hands—he tasted the coffee, to see if it would be too strong for Mr. Cook—I left it in his hands, and left the room—I do not know whether the coffee was vomited then, or whether it was after 4 o'clock—I cannot now remember whether I went into the room again—Mr. Jones arrived that afternoon, I believe, by the 3 o'clock train, from Lutterworth—when first I saw Mr. Jones I found him in to. Cook's room—after that I took him up some more coffee—that might be about 4 o'clock, or between 4 and 5—it was another cup of coffee.

COURT . Q. To whom did you give that? A. I cannot remember whether I gave it to Mr. Cook—I left it in the room—whether Mr. Palmer was there I cannot remember now.

MR. JAMES . Q. After you had taken up the coffee at 4 o'clock, did you see Palmer? A. Yes; after I had taken it up, he opened the door and asked me to empty that, he had vomited the coffee—ho told me that Cook had vomited the coffee; he opened the bedroom door, I was outside on the landing, I suppose he heard me—he gave me the chamber utensil at the door—I did not go into the room at all, it was as I was passing the door—I cannot remember how long afterwards it was, I do not think it could be an hour—I cannot remember whether Palmer was there when I took the coffee up and left it in the room—the utensil had coffee in it—during

that evening I saw Cook several times before I retired to rest—he appeared to be in very good spirits, and was talking about getting up the next morning, and said he would have the barber sent for and be shaved—I believe I gave him some arrowroot that evening—the last time I saw him that evening was not later than half past 10 o'clock—Palmer was with him when I left him.

COURT . Q. He was in his bedroom? A. Yes; I gave him a jug of toast and water at the door for Cook—Mr. Palmer said to Mr. Cook, "Can this good girl do anything more for you to-night"—Mr. Cook said, "No, I shall want nothing more, good night."

MR. JAMES . Q. Was that said by Mr. Cook in a composed and comfort able manner? A. Yes, it was—I did not go to bed that night; I remained in the kitchen, I was anxious to see how Mr. Cook went on—while I was in the kitchen, the bell of Mr. Cook's room rang violently.

COURT . Q. Were you asleep at that time? A. No, I was sitting up in the kitchen.

MR. JAMES . About what time was it? A. A little before 12 o'clock, per haps 10 minutes before 12—it was as near as possible at the same time as on the previous night—Mr. Jones was sleeping in his bedroom, it was a double bedded room, a bed was made up for Mr. Jones—I went up to Mr. Cook's room on hearing the bell—I found Mr. Cook, I believe, sitting up in bed, Mr. Jones appeared to be supporting him; I think he had his arm round his shoulders—Mr. Cook said, "Oh, Mary! fetch Mr. Palmer directly"—he was conscious then, and spoke to me—I went over to Mr. Palmer and rang the bell, the surgery bell; I believe it was at the surgery door, and Mr. Palmer came to the bedroom window—he came to the window as soon as I stepped off the steps into the middle of the road—I expected him to come to the window—as soon as I rang the bell, I stepped off the steps into the road, and he was there, he did not put up the sash—I did not discover a light in his bedroom—I could not positively see him, I could hear him—I could not discern him exactly, he merely opened one square of glass, a small casement at the side, and spoke to me—I could not see whether he was dressed or not at that time—I could not see him at all, I heard him, I heard his voice—I knew his voice—I asked him to come over to Mr. Cook directly, he was much the same as he was the night before—I do not remember what answer he gave me, I turned round and went across again directly—Palmer came in two or three minutes, perhaps—I was in the bedroom when Palmer came—when he came in I think he said he had never dressed so quick in his life, that was the first thing he said—Mr. Jones was still with Mr. Cook—Cook was sitting up in the bed, in much the same state as he was the previous night—I had only been absent a few minutes—Cook was sitting up, and I believe Jones was supporting him—when I left the room after Mr. Palmer came in, I remained in the landing, just outside the door—I waited there—after I had been waiting there some short time, Mr. Palmer came out in about a minute or two, very shortly; I said to him, "He is much the same as he was last night, Mr. Palmer?"—he replied, "Oh! he is not so ill by a fiftieth part"—nothing else passed—he was then going down stairs, as though he was going to his own house—he returned in a very short time, in a few minutes, and went to Mr. Cook's room—I believe I went into the room after he had returned—I believe I heard Mr. Cook make a request about being turned over; I believe he said, "Turn me over on my right side"—I was not in the room at the time it was said, I was at the door—I heard it at the door, the door was open—I did not go in—I do not think I

way in the room at the moment he departed—I believe I went in just before he died, but I came out again—I believe I was uot in when he de parted—I saw Mr. Jones in attendance on him a few minutes before he died—he was supporting him, I think—I think the last I saw of him he had his right arm under Mr. Cook's head—I believe that was it, I cannot be positive—Mr. Palmer was then feeling Mr. Cook's pulse, and he said to Mr. Jones, "His pulse is gone"—Mr. Jones pressed the side of his face to Mr. Cook's heart, and after he had listened to his heart, Mr. Jones lifted up his hands, but did not speak—Mr. Palmer asked me to fetch Mr. Bamford, and I went over for Mr. Bamford.

Q. From the time that you were called up on this night, at about 10 minutes before 12 o'clock, to his death, how long do you think elapsed? A. It might be three quarters of an hour—he died before 1 o'clock—when I went to fetch Mr. Bamford I did not go into the room again; Mr. Bam ford came over, and I saw him when he came down stairs, and he said, "He is dead, he was dead when I arrived"—after Mr. Bamford went out I went on the landing, and sat down on some stairs leading up to the attics—I sat there about ten minutes, and Mr. Jones came out of the room and looked at me, and said, "Mr. Palmer wants you," or, "Will you go in?" or something of that sort, pointing with his finger towards the door of Mr. Cook's room—I went into the room where Mr. Cook was lying dead—Palmer was there—no one was with him—I said, "It is not possible Mr. Cook is dead"—he said,. "Yes, he is dead! oh, yes, he is dead!"—he then asked me who I thought would come to lay him out, and I mentioned two women that I thought Mr. Palmer knew—he said, "Those are just the women"—Lsaid, "Shall I fetch them?" and he said, "Yes."

Q. Had you seen in Mr. Cook's room, during the time he was there, a bet ting book? A. Yes—it was a dark book with a gold band round the edge, with a clasp at one end—it was not a very large book, it was not exactly square, more long than square—I had seen that same book in his possession when he had stopped at the Talbot Arms before, on his way to Liverpool races—there was a case on one side to admit a pencil, and a pencil in it—I cannot remember how long ago it was that he had stopped there before, it was some months, perhaps three or four—I saw that book in bis room on the Monday night before his death—I gave him the book from the dressing table to his bed—that was before his attack on the Monday night.

COURT . Q. How came you to give it to him? A. He asked me to give him the book off the looking glass, and I took it from the looking glass.

MR. JAMES . Q. For what purpose did he require it? A. He asked me to give him the book, the pen and ink and the paper, he was going to write, and I gave him all at once, I took them all to him in bed—that was between 7 and 8 o'clock on Monday night—after he had written the letters he took from the book a postage stamp—there was a pocket at one end of the book, where he took the stamp from—I then placed the book again on the look ing glass—that was at his request—I never saw the book to my knowledge after that—I did not search the room for it the night Mr. Cook died—I did afterwards, the first time I was requested to do so—I searched everywhere—I could not find it—when I went into the room where the body was lying, when Palmer was there, I believe the clothes that Mr. Cook had worn were placed on a chair somewhere—I saw Palmer searching the pockets of the coat—that was on the Tuesday night after Mr. Cook was dead, at the time that Mr. Jones wished me to go in the room, perhaps ten minutes after—I went in and found Mr. Palmer with the coat in his hand;

that was the coat that I had seen Mr. Cook wear—he was searching the pockets of the coat—it was not a frock coat, nor yet a dress coat, or a great coat; I know the style of the coat, but not the name of it.

Q. Did you observe him do anything with the bolster or pillow, where Cook had lain? A. Yes, he searched under the pillow and bolster—I saw two or three letters lying on the chimney piece, I think—that was at this time, immediately after Cook's death, and while Palmer was in the room—I never found them afterwards, to my knowledge—I did not go much into the room afterwards—I had not seen those letters on the mantelpiece before the death, to my knowledge—after his death I did, while Palmer was in his room—I have never seen them since to my knowledge.

Adjourned.

Thursday, May 15th.

ELIZABETH MILLS , cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. How long had you been at the Talbot Arms at the date of Mr. Cook's death? A. About two years—I cannot exactly remember how long before Mr. Cook's death I saw him there first, he was there three or four months, almost altogether—he made it his home—I mean immediately preceding his death—he came first in May, 1855—he was there, on and off, about three months altogether—I never heard him complain of anything except his throat—he first com plained of his throat perhaps two or three months before his death; he did not complain frequently, it was merely a sore throat, or something of that, through a cold—I believe he had a gargle for it, but I only saw one bottle—I believe he had the gargle from Mr. Thirlby—I did not observe any sores about his mouth when he first came, or at any time previous to his death—I never heard him complain of any difficulty in swallowing—I do not know of his tongue having been sore—I have seen him with a loaded tongue, from a bad stomach—he did not complain in my hearing of the tongue being sore, so as to render it difficult for him to swallow—I do not know of caustic having been applied to it while he was there—I do not know that Mr. Thirlby attended him for his mouth and throat at the inn—I cannot tell how recently before his death I heard him complain of a sore throat: it was longer than a fortnight, it might be a month, or more; a month, or two—he did not tell me that it was actually sore, that the skin was off, that it was sore in that sense; but that it was sore, he should fancy from cold, he had got a slight cold—he never told me that it had healed—he did not, beside the gargle, take medicine at the house that I know of—I saw pill boxes about during his last illness—he had not a violent cough, he had a cough which a person would have from a cold, but not a frequent cough—I do not say that he was rarely without one, I say that he bad a slight cough at the time his throat was sore; it would be through cold perhaps—he had not been ailing, to my knowledge, just before he went to Shrewsbury—when he came back from Shrewsbury he at once said that he was poorly—after he died I stayed at the Talbot Inn, till the day after Christmas day; I then went home; that is in the Potteries, Shelton—I have been in service since at Dolly's Hotel, Paternoster-row—I went into service there in Jan.—I am not in service there now—I remained till Feb., I stayed six weeks there—it is a chop house—I was there as chambermaid—after I came to London I saw Mr. Stevens, perhaps about a week after—I met him at Dolly's Hotel once, and perhaps four or five times—I will not swear that it was not ten or twelve times—I will swear that it was not twenty times—it might be six or seven times—I will swear that it was not twelve

times—sometimes he spoke to me while Mrs. Dewhuret was there, in one of her sitting rooms—I did not go into a sitting room and speak to him alone, sometimes Mrs. Dewhuret was there, and sometimes Miss Dewhurst—it was not always about Cook's death that he spoke to me—he merely called to see how I liked London, and whether I was well in health.

Q. He was in the station of a gentleman; do you mean to say that he called to see whether you liked London? A. Yes, to see if I liked the place—I am not going to take my oath that he always called to ask me how I liked London—he sometimes talked about one thing, and sometimes another, but nothing besides Mr. Cook's death—I had conversed a little with him at the Talbot Inn when he was there, before the funeral—I had had no private conversation with him—I had never been in a room with him alone at the Talbot Inn—he had not spoken to me about coming to London—when he came to Dolly's Hotel, he spoke to me about many more things besides Mr. Cook's death—I cannot remember now what else.

Q. Tell me a single thing of sufficient importance to remain on your memory, except Cook's death? A. I cannot remember, I do not keep things in my head for weeks and months together—I did not tell him, "Mr. Stevens, you have been here often enough; I have told you all I know"—he never gave me any money, never a farthing—he has made me no promises, not even to get me a place—the last time I saw him was yes terday in Court; he is not in Court now that I am aware of—the last time I saw him before that, and out of Court, was on Tuesday, at Dolly's Hotel—he merely said, "How do you do?" and asked me how I was, and plenty more were present—he did not dine at Dolly's—he may live there for what I know, I do not know exactly where he lives—it was in one of the sitting rooms—I was not alone with him, Lavinia Barnes was there—Lavinia Barnes, of the Talbot Inn; she is staying at Dolly's now—there were two more gentlemen in the room beside, they were Mr. Hatton and Mr. Gardner—Mr. Hatton is, I suppose, the chief officer of police in Staffordshire, or at Rugeley, and the neighbourhood—I only know that people say that he is—I knew him when he was there—Mr. Gardner is, I believe, an attorney, at Rugeley—I cannot remember whether on this occasion all the talk was about Cook's death, it might be mentioned—I do not pretend to keep in my head what the conversation was that evening—there were many more things mentioned: what I do not wish to mention—I cannot remember the sub jects, it would be impossible for me to remember—the gentlemen talked among themselves of other subjects than Cook's death, but perhaps my thoughts were occupied with something else; I was not paying attention to them—I do not remember any other subject which remains on my memory—I cannot remember any other matter of conversation—they might talk about Cook's death, I cannot recollect—I do not know whether they talked about the trial which was coming on—they did not, that I heard, talk about the evidence which I was to give—they did not ask me what I could prove—they did not read my deposition before the Coroner over to me—I saw nothing produced, nothing was read to me—nothing was read to me from a newspaper, nor did Mr. Stevens on any previous interview read anything to me from a newspaper—he did not read my deposition to me—he did not talk to me about the symptoms which Cook exhibited shortly before his death—I do not know Mr. Deane—that was not the first time since Cook's death that I had seen Mr. Hatton, I had seen him before, I cannot remember how many times; I should say perhaps twice, I am sure not half a dozen times—I saw him once at Dolly's, not about Cook's death;

I believe he merely dined there, and I saw him in a sitting room—I did not wait on him—I was not alone in the room with him—he did not say anything about Cook's death to me that I can remember—I cannot remem ber, upon my oath, that he spoke to me about Cook's death—I do not pre tend to tell you what I think; he might have, but I cannot remember—I do not know whether he did or did not, he might—I mean, on my oath, to say that I cannot remember—he asked me how I was, I can remember that—I do not remember that he said a good deal more than that, I do not know—I had seen Mr. Gardner three or four times before, since Cook's death, once at Dolly's, and I met him in the street, but merely said, "Good morning," or, "How do you do?"—that was twice—I have not met him anywhere else that I am aware of—I say, "No"—I mean to say positively that I only met him at Dolly's, and in the street—I'have not been to an attorney's office with him—I had no talk with him in the street besides "How do you do?"—I left Dolly's in Feb.—I have not been to London since, before I came up for this trial—from Dolly's I went to my mother's house—I am now living with my mother, when I am at home that is, at Rugeley she is now—I have been living there with my mother about three weeks—before that I was living among my friends at Hitchinghill—I have got some friends there—friends are friends, I suppose—I have been living there with some friends.

Q. With whom? A. I say I have been living with my friends—I know a man of the name of Dutton, he is a friend of mine.

Q. Is it with him you have been living? A. I have been living with two—I have been staying at Dutton's a short time—he is a friend of mine—there is a Mrs. Dutton, his mother—I have been living with Dutton, I have been staying there about a month—Dutton is about thirty years of age, perhaps—he is a labouring man—his mother lives in the house—I have known him about two years—the house is a cottage, there are two rooms down and two up—there are two bed rooms—his mother sleeps in one, and I slept with her—I always slept with her, I swear that—I have known his mother ever since I have known him, two years—she is not dependent upon him, I believe she has 6 s . a week coming in—I do not know what he has coming in, nor about—he is there now for anything I know—I do not know that I have any other friends there—I have been staying with mother and with a cousin for a while—that is in the Potteries—when I spoke of two friends, I spoke of his brother being there; his brother was there also, another single brother—I left Dolly's because I did not like the place—I left of my own accord—I can read, easily—I can read newspapers—I do not remember that I have read the case of a Mrs. D * *, I may have done so.

Q. A case that lately occurred at Leeds; a lady who was poisoned by her husband, or said to be? A. I heard it spoken of, I did not read it—I heard it spoken of by many persons, I cannot mention one more than another—I never heard Mr. Stevens mention it, or Mr. Gardner, or Mr. Hatton; no one belonging to the trial—I was not told, when I heard of it, what the symptoms of Mrs. D * * were; I merely heard there had been strychnine used in Leeds, another strychnine case—I never heard the symptoms stated to me—the symptoms of strychnine were never mentioned to me—I will swear that—I first used the expression "twitching" to the Coroner, or if I did not mention "twitching," I mentioned words to the same effect—I cannot swear that I used that word to the Coroner, I used it before I came to London, but I do not know to whom—I will swear I

used it before I came to London—I believe I used it in mother's house—I swear I did, and I described to her the symptoms that the young man died under—I will swear I used the word "twitching" to mother—she is not here—I cannot remember when I first used the word "jerking" to anybody—it has never been used to me by anybody—I have never been asked by anybody whether there was not jerking or twitching, not that I can remember—I do not remember saying yesterday that I vomited at least twenty times after I had drunk about two table spoonfuls of the broth.

Q. Did you state one word about that before the Coroner? A. It never occurred to me then, it occurred to me three days after.

Q. You say it never occurred to you before the Coroner; did you state this before the Coroner, "I tasted the broth on the Sunday before Mr. Cook's death; it was not made in this house; I thought the broth very good after I had tasted it; I believe some broth had been sent over on the Satur day; nothing particular was in the taste of the broth"? A. No, I did not taste anything particular—I believe that is what I said—I cannot remem ber that I had been examined first before the Coroner, and had retired, and was then recalled—I was examined twice, and I believe three times before the Coroner—I do not know whether it was on the first occasion that my attention was called to the fact of the broth having been sent over, but on one occasion it was called distinctly to the broth, and I was asked whether I tasted it—I did state that I had tasted it, and thought it very good—it never occurred to me to state to the Coroner that after I tasted it I vomited fre quently in the course of the afternoon—I did not think it was the broth at the time—I told you yesterday that I went to bed in consequence of the vomiting—sickness of that kind repeated frequently in the course of that afternoon is not a very common occurrence with me—I am not subject to it—I have a bilious attack sometimes, but not such violent sickness as I had that afternoon—I could not at all account for it at the time—I only took two table spoonfuls; that was all—the vomiting came on from half an hour to an hour afterwards—on the Saturday morning Mr. Cook had coffee for breakfast—Mr. Palmer ordered it, I believe—Cook did not express a wish to me to have coffee, that I heard—I do not know whether he or Palmer told me to bring coffee, but I never knew Cook to take coffee in bed before; he in general took tea.

Q. I understood you to say yesterday, "Palmer came over, at 8 o'clock, and ordered a cup of coffee for Mr. Cook"? A. I do not remember whether Palmer ordered it or not—I do not remember stating yesterday that he did—if I stated it yesterday it is truth, but I do not remember whether Palmer ordered the coffee or not, now.

Q. You stated it yesterday. A. Then it if correct—I swear to it now—if it was stated yesterday, I do not doubt that it is correct—( Thai portion of the witness's evidence was read over to her from the Judge's notes )—I will now swear that that is correct—it is no doubt correct if I said so yesterday)—perhaps I cannot recollect to-day so well as I did yesterday.

Q. Did you state this before the Coroner, "On Saturday he had coffee for breakfast, about 8 o'clock; he ate nothing; he vomited directly he had swallowed it; up to the time I had given him the coffee I had not seen Mr. Palmer"? A. That I cannot remember—I cannot remember whether I stated before the Coroner that he vomited directly he had swallowed it, or whether I stated that up to the time. I had given him the coffee I had not seen Mr. Palmer—I stated yesterday that I saw a pill box on Monday night; it was sent over there about 8 o'clock, wrapped up in paper, and

that I placed it on the dressing table in Mr. Cook's bedroom, and that on that same evening I saw Palmer in Cook's room, between 9 and 10 o'clock—I do not remember whether I said a word about that before the Coroner; I might; I cannot remember it now—perhaps I was not asked the question by the Coroner—I did not state anything beside what I was asked—I cannot remember whether I did or did not—I will now swear that he was there between 9 and 10 o'clock—he brought a jar of jelly, and I opened it in his bedroom—I cannot remember now how long after 9 o'clock I saw that he was there—it was between 9 and 10 o'clock—I cannot tell to a quarter of an hour—I should say it was nearer 10 than 9 o'clock—I should imagine so—I cannot be positive—I did not say that I saw him there again at half past 10 o'clock—I said it was half past 10 o'clock when I left Cook—I do not recollect whether Palmer was there the'n—I have no certain recollection of seeing him there that night, after the time I saw him between 9 and 10 o'clock, until he was fetched over to Mr. Cook—I do not know when he took the pills—I stated yesterday that I asked him on the Tuesday morning what he thought the cause of his illness was, and that he said, "The pills which Palmer gave me at half past 10 o'clock"—I did not say that before the Coroner.

Q. Have you been questioned since Cook's death by any one respecting what you did say before the Coroner as to when these pills might have been given, or respecting anything that you said about these pills before the Coroner? A. Yes—that was at Hitchinghill, by Dr. Collier.

Q. Did you tell him that the gentlemen in London had altered your evi dence on that point, and that your evidence was now to be, "Cook said, 'The pills which Palmer gave me at half past 10 o'clock made me ill'"? A. I did not tell him the gentlemen had altered my evidence—I stated some thing about my evidence being altered since—he said he had not got that down in what I had given to die Coroner; and I said, no, but I thought it was down' on some of the papers I had given to the other gentlemen in London.

Q. Did you say that the evidence had been altered by anybody, or by yourself, since? A. It had been altered by myself—it had occurred to me since—I could not say who the gentleman was to whom I had given it, because I did not know—I gave it to him at Dolly's.

Q. You said "in some of the papers;" were there more papers than one besides the depositions? A. I believe this paper was the only one, except Dr. Collier's—I did say "in some of the papers," the one that he had—I gave it to the one at Dolly's.

Q. Do you mean to tell the Jury that you do not know to whom you gave it? A. I did not ask the gentleman who he was, neither did he tell me.

COURT . Q. Do you mean that you do not know his name? A. No, I do not.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Did he tell you from whom he came? A. No, he did not—he asked me if I would answer him a few questions—I said, "Certainly"—he neither said who he was, neither did I ask him who he was—I do not know who he is—I saw him in a private sitting room—I was with him perhaps half an hour—he did not ask me very many questions—he was writing while I was answering the questions—he did not tell me who he was, or who he came from, or what it was wanted for.

Q. Did he mention Mr. Stevens's name? A. Yes—he did not tell me he came from Mr. Stevens.

Q. What did he say about Mr. Stevens? A. Mr. Stevens was with him, he called Mr. Stevens by name—Mr. Stevens was with him.

Q. Why not tell us that before? A. You did not ask me—I did not know that he was an acquaintance of Mr. Stevens—I thought he might be, he came with him—all I said then was taken down.

Q. Did you say before the Coroner, that when Mr. Cook was ill on the Monday night, and sitting up in bed and beating the bed clothes, that he said, "I cannot lie down, I shall suffocate if I do"? A. I do not remember whether I said that or not to the Coroner—I do not know whether I men tioned the word "jerking" to the Coroner, but I know that I said his body and neck was moving constantly, or something of that sort—I am not posi tive about whether I used the word "jerking," I might and I might not—I said before the Coroner, that he threw his head back, and rose himself up again—I am sure I said that.

Q. Did you say he was jumping and jerking all over the body? A. I do not know whether I mentioned the word "jerking," I said he was jumping, the whole of the body was in a jumping, snatching way—I believe I said that it was difficult for him to speak, he was so short of breath—I did not mention that he called aloud, "Murder!" twice—I cannot remember whe ther I said that the fingers did not move—I did not say to the Coroner that as soon as he thought I had rubbed his hands sufficiently he thanked me—I do not remember saying that I noticed him to twitch while I was rubbing his hand—I do not now remember whether I said anything to that effect, or expressing that same meaning—I cannot remember—I do not remember whether I stated that Cook said the pills stuck fast in his threat, he could not swallow them—I did not answer the Coroner anything but what he asked me—if he had asked me those questions they would have been an swered, the same as I am answering them to you—I did not state to the Coroner that Palmer told me to give him some toast and water in a spoon, nor that I gave it him, and he snapped at it, and got the spoon between his teeth, so that it was difficult to get it out of his mouth—I did not state that his head and neck moved forward together, and that it was in that way he got the spoon—( LORD CAMPBELL . suggested that as it was proposed that the deposition of the witness before the Coroner should be put in and read, that would be the more proper course to adopt instead of getting the effect of it by the present course of examination. MR. SERJEANT SHEE . stated that he should certainly read the deposition as part of his case; at the same time he felt it his duty to adopt the course he was now pursuing. The ATTORNEY GENERAL . would have interposed, and submitted that the witness was entitled to hear the deposition read before answering these questions, but that he was prepared to adduce evidence, showing that repeated-expostulations were addressed to the Coroner, as to the mode in which the examination was conducted. )

Q. Did you state to the Coroner that he snapped at the glass when Pal mer gave him a draught, as he had before done at the spoon? A. I did not; if the Coroner had asked me to describe the whole symptoms, I should have done it from the beginning to the end; but he did not, he asked me question by question, and what he asked me I answered—I should have answered these questions if they had been put to me—I believe Dr. Taylor was present the first time I was examined before the Coroner—I could not swear to the gentleman, I believe he was there—I believe I was examined more than twice—I was not recalled after I had been examined once, for the purpose of describing the symptoms for Dr. Taylor to hear—I was not examined as to the symptoms upon any occasion when I knew the medical

gentlemen Were there—on the Monday night Mr. Palmer had on a drab cap—I stated to the Coroner how Mr. Palmer Was dressed on the Mon day night, I did not state how he was dressed on the Tuesday night—I did not state yesterday how he was dressed on the Tuesday night—he had a plaid dressing gown on, but I cannot remember what sort of cap.

Q. Did you observe how he was about the neck and throat, whether he had a shirt on, or any collar; or whether he had any appearance of a man who had been up, or of a man who had only lately got oat of bed? A. I do not know that I noticed particularly about that—I could not say whether he had bis night shirt on or his day shirt; or whether he had any cravat or stock, or whether he had slippers on, or boots or shoes—I cannot remember—I stated in my examination yesterday, that after Mr. Cook's death, Mr. Jones came out to me on the landing, and said, either "Mr. Palmer wants you;" or, "Will you go in?"—I do not remember the words exactly—I did not say that I saw Palmer with a coat in his hand searching the pockets ten minutes after Mr. Jones told me to go in—as soon as Mr. Jones came out he desired me to go into the room, which I did at once; it was then that I saw Palmer searching the pockets of the coat—I do not remember whether I stated before the Coroner that Palmer did not seem at all confused when I went in—I did not discover anything about him to be confused—I stated that I saw him search under the pillow, and at the back of the bolster, and that he just turned the corners up as a gentleman would do looking for a watch, and that at that time he had the coat in his hand—I know the room in which the examination of this body took place ( a model of the house was fore produced )—that describes the room in which the body was examined—I should say that represents the door at which the doctors came in, and the persons who attended the examination—there is another door leading into a sitting room, and there is a door from that sitting room on to the landing; there is a gas lamp over the front door of the Talbot Arms—I do not know the width of the street between the prisoner's house and the Talbot Arms.—( The deposition of the witness before the Coroner was fare put in and mad, as follows : Elizabeth Mills sworn, saith: "I am chambermaid at the Talbot Arms—I attended upon the deceased—he came from Shrewsbury on the Thursday night, 15th Nov., between 9 and 10 o'clock—he came in a fly—Mr. Palmer, surgeon, was with him—Mr. Cook complained of having been ill at Shrewsbury—he did not say what was the matter with him, but said he did not feel exactly well—he went to bed about half past 10 o'clock, and rose next day about 1—break fasted in bed, because he was not well—he had tea and dry toast for breakfast—I did not see him again until night—he went to bed on the Friday night about half past 10 o'clock—he told me he had dined with Mr. Palmer—he did not appear at all the worse for liquor—I took him up stairs to his bed room, and then went and fetched him a longer piece of candle for him to read, at his request—I am sure he was sober—he did not get up Saturday or Sunday—on Saturday he had coffee for breakfast, about 8 o'clock—he ate nothing, he vomited directly he had swallowed it—up to the time I had given him the coffee, I had not seen Mr. Palmer—I asked him what he thought was the cause of his sickness, and he said he thought it was bile—on Saturday, about 12 o'clock, or half past, I gave the deceased some broth—the broth was brought by Mrs. Rowley—Mr. Palmer in the morning said he would send some broth—I took him some broth at Mr. Palmer's request about 1 o'clock—it was a large breakfast cup—I left Mr. Palmer and deceased together—I believe he had vomited the broth immediately—at

4 o'clock he had some coffee—he threw up everything he took on Saturday—Mr. Bamford was called in on the Saturday morning—he was vomiting all Sunday morning—I saw him next about 6 o'clock, and took him a little barley water, that staid on his stomach—about 5 o'clock I took him some arrowroot which was made in the house—he took that, and I believe he vomited that—I heard deceased say he had done—I took him some toast and water—on Monday I took him some coffee and dry toast, and that staid on his stomach—I took him some arrowroot at 1 o'clock, and a little dry toast—he was then sitting up—the arrowroot and dry toast staid on his stomach—about 5 o'clock I gave him some coffee, that remained on his stomach—I took him a little arrowroot at 8 o'clock, that remained on his stomach—took some barley water at 10 o'clock—he did not vomit on the Monday—he was taken ill a little before 12 o'clock on Monday night—I was called up and went to deceased's room, and found him sitting up in bed—he told me to fetch Mr. Palmer directly—the Boots was sent for Mr. Palmer—the deceased was sitting up in bed, beating it with his hands—when I went into the room, Mr. Palmer came shortly after; deceased screamed twice before I got to the room—he said it was the pills that had made him ill—he took the pills about half past 10 o'clock—his eyes appeared very wild, his arms and legs, after beating the bed, appeared quite stiff—he was in a sitting position—his mouth appeared to be closed—he said to Mr. Palmer, 'Doctor, I shall die'—Mr. Palmer said, 'No, my lad, you won't—Palmer went to fetch some pills, and something in a wine glass—it was a brown, heavy looking liquid—from the smell, I should think it was opium—a wine glass was nearly full—he took the pills first, and then the contents of the wine glass—I remained with him until 3 o'clock, and then left Mr. Palmer with him, and he did not vomit afterwards—he asked me to to rub his hands; they appeared stiff, cold, and damp—he had complained when he was here before of a pain in his throat—he has been staying here occasionally since May last—I did not hear any more screams that night—I went into his room on Tuesday morning, about a quarter before 5 o'clock; Mr. Cook then stated that Mr. Palmer left a quarter before 5 o'clock—Mr. Cook was then alone, and dozing at that time—I asked him how he felt, and he said pretty comfortable then—he declined to have anything to eat—I saw him again about 7 o'clock, and he then asked me if I had, at any time, seen a person in such agony as he was the previous night—I said I had not—I asked him at 8 o'clock if he would have anything to eat, and he said no, not until he had seen Mr. Palmer—it was when I saw him at 8 o'clock that he said he thought the pills made him ill—I asked him again at 10 o'clock if he would have anything, and he said no, not before seeing Mr. Palmer—a little before 12 o'clock he rang the bell, and asked me to send the Boots to ask Mr. Palmer, if he (deceased) might have a cup of coffee—I sent the Boots , and he brought a message from Mr. Palmer that deceased might have a cup of coffee, and he would be over directly—Mr. Palmer was in the room when I took the coffee—I saw Mr. Palmer band the coffee to Mr. Cook at 4 o'clock—I took him another cup of coffee—I gave that cup to Mr. Cook—about half an hour afterwards I was passing the door; Mr. Palmer called to me and gave me a vessel, and said Mr. Cook had vomited the coffee—I saw him again several times, but gave him nothing until 8 o'clock, when I gave him some arrowroot—I was in and out several times between that and 10 o'clock, when I saw him then he said he should want the barber to shave him in the morning, as he should get up—he asked me to make him a little toast and water, Mr. Jones would bring it up stairs

with him, and he said,' Good night'—Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer were in the room when I took the toast and water—during the illness of the deceased I saw on the dressing glass a small, dark coloured book, with a clasp—I should know the book again if I saw it—there was a case for a pencil, and a pencil in it—I could see the top of the pencil—I have seen Mr. Cook in possession of that book before he went to Liverpool, two months ago—round the outside of the book there was a gold bordered band—I gave the book, either on Monday or Tuesday night previous to his death, to Mr. Cook—he was then in bed—he took from it a penny postage stamp, he put it on a letter directed to Saunders, 'Hednesford'—I then replaced the book on the glass at Mr. Cook's request—I have not seen that book since his death—since deceased's death I have searched everywhere for the book, but it cannot be found—after Mr. Cook's death Mr. Jones desired me to go into the room—Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer had not been out of the room from the time of Cook's death—I was sitting on the upper flight of stairs, three or four yards from the bedroom door, when Mr. Jones came out—I believe he said,'Will you go in? Mr. Palmer wants you,' or words to that effect, pointing towards the door—it was at that time open—I could not see Mr. Palmer from where I sat—I went immediately into the room—I saw Mr. Palmer there—he asked me who I thought would be proper to come and lay out Mr. Cook—I mentioned to him the names of two women, and he said they were just the women—I saw Mr. Palmer search the pockets of a coat—it was a small coat, not a dress coat—he did not seem at all con fused—I saw him search also under the pillow, and the back of the bolster—he just turned the corners up, as a gentleman would in looking for a watch—at this time he had the coat in his hand—he was quite aware I was present, as we were conversing at the time—I did not see Mr. Palmer take anything out of the pockets, nor from under the pillow—I left him in the room—Mr. Jones slept in the same room with Mr. Cook—the coat Mr. Palmer was searching was not his own coat that I am aware of—he had a dressing gown on at that time—I tasted the broth on the Sunday before Mr. Cook's death; it was not made in this house—I thought the broth was very good after I tasted it; there was a good deal of grease on the top of it—some jelly was brought in on Monday evening by Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Cook asked if he might take a little, and Mr. Palmer said, perhaps he might to-morrow—nothing else was sent up by Mr. Palmer that I tasted—I believe some broth had been sent over on the Saturday; nothing peculiar was in the taste of the broth—Mrs. Keeling and Mrs. Andritt were the women who came to lay out the deceased—Mr. Cook asked for some jelly on the Saturday night")

MR. JAMES . Q. How long do you think you were under examination before the Coroner altogether? A. I cannot remember, perhaps about a couple of hours, on different occasions—I was not asked before the Coroner to describe all the symptoms I saw—the Coroner put the questions to me himself—I believe the Coroner's clerk wrote down my answers—I did nothing more on that examination than answer the questions the Coroner put to me; what he asked me I answered, and nothing more—he did not ask me to make a full statement of the symptoms and all I saw, but put questions, and I answered them.

COURT . Q. Were you asked what effect the broth had upon you, or how you felt after taking the broth? A. The Coroner asked me if the broth had any effect upon me, and I said not that I was aware of.

MR. JAMES . Q. What brought to your mind afterwards the vomiting

after taking the broth; just explain it exactly? A. I do not know, nothing particular occurred to me, I believe it was some one else in the house that mentioned my sickness first—that was perhaps a week after the Coroner's inquest—I cannot remember who it was, it was some of my fellow servants in the house, I do not remember which—it is the fact that I was vomiting after taking the broth, and that I went to bed—Lavinia Barnes knows that—when I asked Mr. Cook what made him ill, he said, "The pills I took at half past 10 o'clock"—I believe I said before the Coroner, "The pills that I took at half past 10 o'clock;" or, "Some pills that I took at half past 10 o'clock;" I cannot remember now what the exact words were—it was when I saw him at 8 o'clock that he said he thought the pills had made him ill he said, "The pills Palmer gave me at half past 10 o'clock"—it has occurred to me since the inquest that those were the words.

Q. You say that a person of the name of Dr. Collier called upon you; do you see him in the Court? A. Yes, that is the gentleman ( pointing him out. )

Q. Did he make any representation to you as to who he wast? A. He said he was for the Crown; he did not tell me who he was until he was leaving—he asked me about the inquest, and about the death of Mr. Cook—I do not remember the day of the month that he came to me—it might be three weeks or a month ago, or more—he found me at Hitchinghill—he asked me questions—he took down some little, not all I said; some he wrote down, and some he did not—I saw him write down something that I said; he took it away with him, he did not ask me to sign it—I cannot exactly remember how long he was writing my statement, perhaps it might be half or three quarters of an hour—I saw him in a room at the house.

COURT . Q. Did he read over to you what he had taken down? A. I cannot remember whether he did or not, I believe not.

MR. JAMES . Q. Was any other person with him? A. I believe there were two outside—they did not come into the house—I saw two join him when he went away from the house—I cannot say that I should know them again, I merely saw them from the garden gate.

Q. Was there any taste in this broth that struck you when you took it? A. I tasted turnips, I fancied, and Celery, nothing more than just the vege tables—I never took tartar emetic, I do not know whether there is any taste in that—I was living at the Talbot Arms two years altogether—Mr. Cook once had a gargle for his throat, it wag some liquid in a bottle—I do not know what the ordinary gargle for a sore throat is, but I have seen him take some in his month and gargle his throat, and spit it out—I believe he got it from Thirlby's I believe I remember the label on the bottle—that is the Thirlby who was Palmer's assistant—I know Thirlby, he is a chemist and druggist—I believe he succeeded to Palmer's business—I have been living with some friends of the name of Dutton, I am engaged to one of the Buttons.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Was not this what Dr. Collier said to you: "I am not for the Crown, nor for the defence, nor for anything but the truth?" A. He asked me if I was Elizabeth Mills—I said, "Yes"—he said, would I answer him a few questions—I said, "Certainly"—he said, "I am for the Crown, but I want you to speak to me, for neither favour nor affection, I merely want the truth, and nothing but the truth."

JAMES GARDNER . I am an attorney, and a member of the firm of Lander, Gardner, and Lander, at Kugeley. We have acted for Messrs. Clay ton, Cookson, and Wainwright, of Lincoln's-inn, with reference to Mr. Cook's

affairs—they are the attornies of Mr. Stevens, the step father of Mr. Cook, the deceased—when Mr. Stevens came down to Rugeley, after the death of his step-son, he brought a letter to me from the firm in London, with whom we correspond—I attended the inquest which was held on the body of Mr. Cook—I put questions occasionally.

COURT . Q. Mr. Ward was the Coroner? A. Yes—he is an attorney.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Did he put questions to the witnesses? A. He did—his clerk took down the answers.

Q. Had you, on behalf of Mr. Stevens, occasion to expostulate with the Coroner as to the questions which he put, or questions which he omitted to put? A. Upon several occasions—I expostulated with him upon that several times each day.

COURT . Q. How long did the inquest last? A. I think five days alto gether, I am not quite sure—( MR. SERJEANT SHEE . submitted that this inquiry should be confined to the examination of the witness Elizabeth Mills. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL . contended that it was material, to show the manner in which the examination generally was conducted. LORD CAMPBELL . considered it admissible, not as evidence against the prisoner, but to explain the manner in which the evidence was taken. )

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL , Q. Bid you observe, while the examination was going on, that the clerk omitted to take down answers to the questions that had been put? A. Certainly.

COURT . Q. While Elizabeth Mills was under examination? A. Ican not swear that—I cannot apply that to Elizabeth Mills's examination.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. When did it arise? A. I can only state it generally—I certainly do not exclude the case of Elizabeth Mills's evidence—I cannot swear that any complaint was made during her examination of the omission to take down answers—( The ATTORNEY-GENERAL . proceeding to apply the inquiry to the evidence generally , LORD CAMPBELL . intimated that the COURT . was of opinion that the inquiry was too general )—I do not remem ber whether, in the course of the examination of Elizabeth Mills, Dr. Taylor objected that some questions were not put by the Coroner that ought to have been put.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. After the examination by the Coroner, and any gentleman attending professionally, did the Jury put several questions? A. A great maay.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Did the Jury make any observations as to the necessity of their putting questions? A. Most strong observations—( The ATTORNEY-GENERAL . proposed to ask the nature of the strong observa tions made by the Jury. MR. SERJEANT SHEE . objected to the question. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL . submitted that it arose out of the cross examination. MR. SERJEANT SHEE . contended that it did not; and that no expression of the individual opinion of any Juryman was admissible. MR. BARON ALDER SON . and MR. JUSTICE CRESSWELL . were of opinion that it was not admissible ,)

ANNE BROOKS . I live in Manchester, and am in the habit of attending races sometimes. I was at Shrewsbury races in Nov., 1855, and saw Palmer there—I had occasion to go and speak to him; that was on the 14th, Wednesday—I met him in the street on the first occasion, that was about 8 o'clock in the evening—I asked him if he thought his horse would win on the following day—that horse was called Chicken, and was to run on the Thursday—Mr. Palmer said, if I heard anything further, I was to call in at the Raven Hotel that evening, and tell him—the informa tion was in reference to another horse called Lord Alfred, which was to run

in the race—he merely said, "Be sure you call if you heap anything"—I went to see him that evening at the Raven, it was about half past 10 o'clock when I went; I had some friends with me who waited below—as I passed the clock in the market square, I noticed the time, and said if it was any later I should not like to call—my friends waited down stairs, and I went up to the first floor; a servant was going up as I went to the door, and I asked her to be good enough to tell Mr. Palmer I wished to see him—when you get to the top of the stairs there is a lobby or passage facing you, and another to the left—when I got to the top of the stairs, I turned to the left—I knew at that time which room Mr. Palmer was occupying, he stayed frequently at the Raven Hotel—I called there the evening before, but he was gone to Rugeley—I knew hut room, but never was in it—I knew the sitting room which he occupied—the servant called my attention to Palmer by saying, "He is there, Ma'am"—she just moved her head, she had a tray in her hand, and said, "He is there"—Palmer was at that time standing at a small table in the passage—he had a tumbler glass, something similar to this one ( produced ) in his hand, when I saw him first—there appeared to be a small quantity of liquid in it, which appeared to be the colour of water; it was clear—I do not mean that it was water coloured, but that it was liquid of the colour of water—he just turned it in this manner, round, shaking the fluid up that was in it—there was a light in the passage where I stood—Mr. Palmer was a little in the shade, the light was nearer to me—he said, "I will be with you presently," and held it up in this way between him and the light—he noticed me the moment I got to the top of the stairs—after he had said, "I will be with you presently," he stood a few minutes longer, or perhaps a minute or two longer at the table, with the glass in his hand—he held it up once or twice during the time he staid there, and at intervals, between when he held it up first and afterwards, I observed him shaking it now and then—while he was shaking it, and holding it up to the light, I made an observation about the weather, what very fine weather we had—the weather was fine—there was a sitting room door partially open, adjoining Palmer's sitting room, and he carried the glass into that sitting room—I supposed at the time that it was unoccupied—I heard no one talk ing—I heard no one address him as he went in, but I could not see the whole of the room—he was there about two or three minutes, and then came out again with the glass still in his hand—what I saw ia the glass was still of the colour and appearance of water—he then carried it into his own sitting room, and shut the door after him—he was there three or four minutes, and then he came out to me, and brought roe out a glass with brandy and water in it—it might be the same glass, it looked like it, but the fluid was different—mine was brandy and water; I had the brandy and water, and it produced no unpleasant consequences on me—a conversation took place between us about the race on the following day, about the horses—he said that he should back his horse Chicken—I was present at the race; Chicken ran, and lost—I did not afterwards hear from Palmer whether he had won or lost on the race.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Is your name Brooks? A. Yes, that is my name—I am married, that is the name of my husband—I have been in the habit of frequenting some few races near home, but I had other business at Shrewsbury on this occasion—my husband did not go with me, he never goes—I do not attend many races in the course of the year—my husband has a very high appointment—he holds a public office—he does not sanction my going, when he knows it—I am on terms of

friendly acquaintance with a great many of these racing men—I never, to my recollection, knew Mr. Herring, who goes by the name of Howard on the turf, till I met him at Stafford before the Grand Jury—I did not know him by sight.

Q. Do you know whether other racing men on the Wednesday were taken ill at Shrewsbury? A. There were a great many ill; one of my company was dreadfully ill—there was a wonder what had caused it—we made an observation that we thought the water might have been poisoned at Shrewsbury—we were all affected in the same way with sickness.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Did you see anybody affected yourself in that way? A. They were sick and purged—I myself saw a lady who came to meet me, that was one, and another party in my company; in fact, he was that ill that he could not go to the race on the Thursday.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. I think I heard you say that they were affected by sickness and purging? A. They were—I saw Mr. Palmer with a glass in his hand—he held it carelessly up, in this form, not near the light—I did not see any substance in the glass.

Q. Did he hold it between his eyes and the light, so that he could see if there had been anything floating in it? A. Just in this way—this was a passage that led to a good many rooms—I think there was a gas light, I think it was a chandelier—he said, "I will be with you presently," when he carried the glass into the unoccupied sitting room, as I supposed—he said that while he was holding it up—there was no confusion at all, nothing to excite suspicion, he was quite calm—I thought he was mixing himseif up some cooling drink, and was waiting for water—I was not examined before the Coroner.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Was the brandy and water he gave you hot or cold? A. Cold—I am on friendly terms with many men who frequent the turf, and have been on intimate terms with Mr. Palmer—I have known him a great many years as a racing man.

LAVINIA BARNES . In Nov., 1855, I was in service at the Talbot Arms, as waitress—I know Palmer and knew Cook—I saw him on Monday, 12th Nov., on bis going to the Shrewsbury races, he called there and spoke to me—he seemed much as usual, he seemed very well—he did not complain of anything, as I know of—I saw him on his return from Shrewsbury on the 15th, Thursday night—I remember his coming back on the Friday, after having dined with Palmer—I saw him between 9 and 10 o'clock at night—I spoke to him—he was sober—Elizabeth Mills attended on him to his room—I saw him twice during the Saturday—I remember some broth being sent over on the Saturday—I took it up to Mr. Cook—he did not drink it then, he said he could not take it, he was too sick—I brought it down, and put it in the kitchen, on the table—after that I saw Palmer, and told him that Mr. Cook could not take it, he was too sick; Palmer replied that he must have it, and it was afterwards taken up to him by Elizabeth Mills, the chambermaid—on the Sunday I did not see some more broth which was sent over—Elizabeth Mills was taken ill on the Sunday, between 12 and 1 o'clock, I think, with vomiting—it was violent—she went to bed—I saw her vomiting—I did not see her again till between 4 and 5 o'clock, I rather think—she complained to me at the time of being ill from the vomiting, she said she felt very sick—I did not see the broth brought on the Sunday—I do not know whether that broth was made in the Talbot Arms, it was in a sick cup, with two handles, which was not belonging to the Talbot Arms—that cup went back to Mr. Palmer's—on the Monday

morning I saw Palmer at the Talbot Arms, between 7 and 8 o'clock—he did not say anything to me about where he was going, but be told Eliza beth Mills, in my presence, that he was going to London—T did not see Mr. Cook on the Monday till after dinner—I saw him during the day—I remember some one coming to see him—I remember Mr. Saunders, the trainer, from Hednesford, being there—I took up to Mr. Saunders some cups of brandy and water—my room is the next to Mr. Cook's—on that Monday night Palmer came, between 8 and 9 o'clock, I think—I saw him go up stairs in the direction of Cook's room, and I saw him in the room after wards—I saw him in Cook's room between 12 and 1 o'clock—I do not remember seeing him in the room before 12 o'clock—about 12 o'clock I was in the kitchen, I had not gone to bed, and was alarmed by Mr. Cook's bell ringing violently—it rings into the passage by the kitchen—I went up stairs, and found Mr. Cook very ill—he asked me to send for Mr. Palmer—he was screaming "Murder!" he seemed in violent pain, and said that he was suffocating—his eyes were very wild looking, and they were standing a great way out of his head, as if they were going to start out of his head—he was beating the bed with his hands in this way when I saw him first—I left for the purpose of sending the Boots for Palmer—Elizabeth Mills had not come then, I called her up afterwards—Cook screamed "Murder!" and for Christ to have mercy on his soul—I had never seen any person in such a state before—I sent the Boots of the hotel over for Palmer—he came, and after he came I went up again into the room—Cook was then more com posed—he spoke to Palmer in my presence—he said, "Oh, doctor! I shall die!" or something like that—Palmer said, "Don't be alarmed, lad"—I did not see any pills given—I saw Cook drinking a darkish mixture in a glass—I cannot remember who gave it to him, but I saw it in his hand—Palmer was in the room—when Cook put the glass to his month he was biting at it, snapping at it—I saw his teeth snap at the glass, I both saw and heard that—that black looking draught did not remain on his stomach, he vomited it—I left him between 12 and 1 o'clock—he was then more composed—I cannot remember when I first saw him on Tuesday—I did see him, and he seemed a little better—I asked him how he was—I saw him more than once on the Tuesday, he seemed better during the whole of the time—on the Tuesday night I was alarmed again by Mr. Cook's bell ringing—Elizabeth Mills went up to answer the bell—she was with me in the kitchen when the bell rang—I followed her up stairs, and met her coming back—I did not go into Mr. Cook's room then—I heard him screaming—I was standing on the landing by the door—I saw Palmer come, Elizabeth Mills fetched him—I was on the landing when he came, and said to him, "Mr. Cook is ill again"—he said, "Oh, is he?" and went into the room—he was dressed in his usual way; he had a black coat on—there was nothing peculiar about his dress, except that he had a cap on—after he had gone into the room I remained on the landing—I could not hear what was going on inside—after some time Palmer came out, and went down stairs and away for something—when he came out he spoke to me first, I think, and said that Cook was not so bad by a fiftieth part as he was the night before—I heard Elizabeth Mills ask him how Cook was—it was in answer to her question that he said that Cook was not one fiftieth part as bad as he was the night before—we were both standing together, and he said it to us both—I went into the room before Cook died; Mr. Jones was there in attendance on him—I heard Cook ask Jones before he died to be turned over—I was not in the room when I heard him ask that,

I was standing on the landing—Palmer was in the room when he asked to be turned over—I do not remember what I heard when I went into the room—I canie oat again before I knew that Cook was dead—I did not see him die, I was not in the room when he died—after he was dead, I was in the room when Palmer was there, and saw him with a coat in his hand when I went in; he was feeling in the pockets of it, and he felt under the bolster—when I saw him doing this, I said, "Oh, Mr. Cook cannot be dead!"—he said, "He is, and I knew he would be"—I left him in the room with the dead body—that was on Tuesday—I remember seeing Palmer on the following Thursday; I met him in the hall of the hotel, and he asked me for the key of Mr. Cook's bedroom, the room in which the body had said—I had not the care of the key, it was in the bar, and I fetched it—he said that he wanted some books and papers and a paper knife, that they were to go back to the stationer's where he had them from, or he should have to pay for them—I went into the room with him, and while I was in the room with him, he requested me to go to Miss Bond, for some books which she had—I went down stairs with the message, and got the books from Miss Bond; one of them had a green heading on it—when I went back I found Palmer still in the room, looking for the paper knife on a chest of drawers, among some clothes and papers belonging to Mr. Cook—I know that it was a paper knife that he was looking for, because he said, "I cannot find the knife anywhere"—he was then searching on the top of the cheat of drawers—afterwards Miss Bond, the housekeeper, came up into that room, and I left—I remember Mr. Jones coming on Friday, the same Mr. Jones who slept in his room on Tuesday—I saw him on Friday with Palmer, and I asked him if he knew where Mr. Cook's betting book was—I cannot remember what Mr. Palmer said—he said that it would be sure to be found, and asked me and the chambermaid, Elizabeth Mills, to go and look for it—he said that it was not worth anything to any one else but to Cook—this was between 3 and 4 o'clock, I think—I remember Mr. Stevens being at the Talbot Arms—he left about half past 4 o'clock—alter that had been said about the betting book we went up stairs to look for it, and could not find it—Palmer did not go up with us—we hunted for it; we searched the place—we did not look in any drawers, but we searched the bed and all round the room—there were two sets of drawers, they, were open—I went down, saw Palmer and Jones, and stated that we had not been able to find it—Palmer said, "Oh, it will be found somewhere; I will go with you and look myself"—he did not go with me, he went out of the house, and I did not see him afterwards—I do not know at what time Palmer came out of Cook's room on Friday, I did not see him come out—I cannot remember seeing him come away—there was no reason for our not searching the drawers for the betting book.

COURT . Q. Why did not you expect to find it there? A. There were some people in the room with Mr. Cook's corpse, nailing the coffin, and they were standing by the drawers.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You say that some broth was sent up, and Cook could not take it, he was too sick, and that Palmer came over shortly afterwards, and said that he must have it? A. Yes—Palmer said that he must have it; those were the words—he did not say why he must have it—I do not remember his saying anything to the effect of, "Why, he has eaten nothing for several days"—he did not say to me whether anything had been eaten by Cook—Cook had had coffee, and cocoa, and arrowroot—that was between 12 and 1 o'clock on the Saturday—I

have said that on the Monday evening I saw Palmer, between 8 and 9 o'clock, going up stairs, and did not see him again till Cook was taken ill, about 12 o'clock—I am not quite certain that it was before 9 o'clock—I am not sure that it was before half past 9 o'clock—I did not pay particular attention to what the exact hour was—I am quite certain it was before 10 o'clock—I knew that he had been to London—I do not know at what hour the train came in from London—there is an omnibus from Mr. Master's to the station—it starts about half past 7 o'clock to the hotel—it is not a mile to the station—I do not know at what time the express train came in from London at that time, and I do not know whether it stopped at Rugeley—I think it must have been before 10 o'clock that I saw Palmer come is—I cannot remember now whether it was before 10 o'clock—I cannot remem ber now whether, when Cook snapped at the glass, the glass was in his hand—I saw him drinking, and I think I saw his hand up to the glass—I think he was as if he was going to catch hold of the glass, and somebody else was holding it—I cannot remember whether I saw Cook's hand touch the glass—I think somebody was holding it for him—he might be holding it—there was some of Cook's linen in the drawers; I do not know whether there was in all the drawers, but in many of them—Cook had many clothes there; I cannot say how many, there was a portmanteau full, besides what was in the drawers—I cannot remember whether he had a great coat, but he had an overcoat there, and dress clothes, and morning clothes—I cannot remem ber how soon after the death of Cook the door was locked—it was locked that night, the night of the death—it was locked after the corpse was laid out—women were sent for to lay out the corpse before it was light—I cannot say whether the door was locked as soon as that was done—it was locked when I got up, and Miss Bond had the keys in the bar—the under takers went in the morning—I do not know how long they were there—I did not see them come out—after they came out the door was locked again; I am sure of that—they had to come again with the dead clothes, and the shell of the coffin—I cannot recollect when they brought them; it was in the night, but I think the shell was there before that—I do not remember at what hour they came—they had the key, and were allowed to go up, and nobody with them—I cannot remember how many there were—on the Friday, when Mr. Stevens was there, they had not been long there, they only came to screw the coffin up—the body was put into the coffin that day, not the sight before—the women were fetched to put bin in—besides the women and the undertakers, I and the chambermaid were present—I was not there all the time, I went out and in—I saw three persons employed there by the undertakers.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. On the Tuesday night, after Cook died, the door was locked? A. It was looked before I got up in the morning—when the women came to lay out the body, the door was not opened for then; it was open—the chambermaid and I were with them when they laid out the body—I did not remain there; I went in and out—I cannot recollect whether the chambermaid was there—the women were left alone, I cannot say how long—I left them there when I went to bed, so I cannot say—I was about the room while they were laying out the body—I did not show the women in—I do not know who did—I saw, when the women were there, a small book on the glass of the dressing table—I had seen that book while Mr. Cook was there, but I never saw it afterwards—I cannot remember when I saw it—I saw him with it in his hand—I did not see it after his return from Shrewsbury races—I did not look into the

drawers when I went up stairs to look for the book—I do not know whether Mills did or not—I looked under the bed, and she helped me.

ANN ROWLEY . I live at Rugeley. I have been in the habit of being employed by Mr. Palmer as a charwoman—I remember the Saturday before Mr. Cook died—Mr. Palmer sent me to Mr. Robinson's, of the Albion, on that day, for a little broth for Mr. Cook—I fetched it—the Albion is in New-street, or Albion-street—it is an inn, a small distance from the Talbot Arms—I brought the broth to Palmer's house—I took it through the back kitchen, and put it into a little saucepan, and put it by the kitchen fire to warm—I then went about my work in the back kitchen, again, and left it at the fire—Mr. Palmer brought it to me in the back kitchen when it was hot—he poured it into a cup—I held the cup, and Mr. Palmer poured it in—he said I was to take it across to Mr. Mastery's, for Mr. Cook, and I was to tell whoever I gave it to, to ask Mr. Cook if he would take a little bread, or a little toast, with it, and to say that Mr. Smith had sent it.

COURT . Q. Did he say why you were to say that Mr. Smith had sent it? A. No.

MR. WELSBY . Q. Did you take it to the Talbot Arms? A. Yes—he said it was Jeremiah Smith that had sent it—there is a gentleman of that name, an attorney, Hying at Rugeley—that is the Mr. Smith who goes by the name of Jerry Smith—he is a friend of Mr. Palmer's—he used to visit at Mr. Palmer's—I took the broth to the Talbot Arms, and gave it to Lavinia Barnes.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Was Mr. Smith in the habit of putting up at the Albion? A. Yes—I think he goes there to his meals a good deal—I was not so circumstanced respecting him as to know where he might have passed his night on any particular night—I do not know where he slept on the Sunday night—I believe he was intimate and friendly with Mr. Cook.

COURT . Q. Did you ever see them together? A. I have seen Mr. Cook come to Mr. Smith's—I do not know that I ever knew them to dine together—Mr. Cook was to have dined with Mr. Smith that day, but he was not able to go—I believe Mrs. Robinson, of the Albion, made the broth, by Mr. Smith's order, for anything I know—I do not know anything about it—I was sent there for the broth, and I know no more—from the time I left the broth in the saucepan in the kitchen to Palmer's bringing it to me in the back kitchen, I should say not above five minutes elapsed.

CHARLES HAWLEY . I am a gardener, residing at Rugeley. I was occa-sionally employed by the prisoner—I remember going to his house on the Sunday before Mr. Cook died.

COURT . Q. How were you employed by Palmer? A. In the garden, as a gardener.

MR. BODKIN . Q. How came you to go there on the Sunday? A. Mr. Palmer asked me whether I would take some broth to Mr. Cook—that was in his own house—I was very often in the habit of going there on the Sunday—it was between 12 and 1 o'clock in the day that he asked me to do that—he gave me the broth in a small cup with a cover; he told me to take it across to the Talbot Arms for Mr. Cook—I did so—I cannot tell whether it was hot—I did not look at it, or feel it—I gave it to one of the servant girls, either Mills or Lavinia.

SARAH BOND . I was housekeeper at the Talbot Arms, in Nov. last I knew Mr. John Parsons Cook—he had been staying there during the last year—I remember his going to the Shrewsbury races on 12th Nov.; he came back on the Thursday—I saw him on the Thursday night—I heard

him say that he was very poorly—I did not see him on the Friday or Satur day—I saw him on the Sunday evening about 8 o'clock—he was in bed—he said that he had been very poorly, bat he was better that night—I saw Palmer there that Sunday night, very soon after I came out of Mr. Cooks room—I asked him what he thought of Mr. Cook—he told me he was better—on the Saturday night some one slept in the room with him—I mentioned about his having some person with him, and he said that either he or Mr. Jerry Smith should be with him that night, he should not be left on the Saturday night—I asked him if he thought he would not want some oae with him on the Sunday night; he said he was so much better he would not require any one, he would be much better without any one—I men tioned the Boots , Daniel Jenkins, and asked if he should sleep in the room—he said he had much rather he did not, for he was so much better, and he would be much better alone—I saw Palmer again next morning (Mon day) a little before 7 o'clock—he came into the kitchen to me—I asked him how Mr. Cook was—he said he was better, and he asked me to make him a cup of coffee—he did not say how it was to be made, whether it was to be strong or weak, he merely asked me to give him a cup of coffee—I made that coffee—he remained in the kitchen while I made it, he then took it from me—I gave it him, and he took it from me to take to Mr. Cook—he told me that he was going to London that day—he said that he had written to Mr; Jones to come to be with Mr. Cook, because he was going to London, he thought it would tie better—I saw Mr. Cook en the Monday night—I went up to his room; the waitress came, and told me that he was very ill—that was from 11 to 12 o'clock—I had mot heard the bell ring, the waitress told me it had rung—when I went into the mom there was no person with him—he was on the bed, sitting up a little; he seemed rather irritable when I went in; he seemed disappointed that it was not Mr. Palmer, he said it was Mr. Palmer that he wanted—I was not in the room above two or three minutes—when I went in, Mr. Cook was sitting up in bed resting on his elbow—I was going to light his candle, but he told me not to light it, he did not want a candle—I then left the room, and went on the landing—Mr. Palmer came in—I was then on the landing—I could see into the room—Palmer went into the room—I could not see what he was doing, but I heard that he was giving him some pills, and there was a draught for him to take—he left the room again to fetch some medicine, and then came back again—he was not away many minutes—when he came back, I beard nothing in the room, except hearing that Mr. Cook was very sick and very ill—he fold Mr. Palmer that he thought he should die, and he must not leave him—I beard him say so, I was in the passage—when Cook said that, Palmer cheered him up, and told him that he would do all he could to prevent that—when Mr. Palmer came out again, I asked him if Mr. Cook had any rela tives—he said that he had only a stepfather—I saw Mr. Cook again on the Tuesday, between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when Mr. Jones came—I took him up a little jelly a little after 6 o'clock—I did not see Mr. Cook alive after that—when I took him up the jelly he seemed very anxious for it, and said if he did net have something he thought he should die—I thought he seemed a little better then—on the Wednesday morning I got the key of Mr. Cook's bedroom between 8 and 9 o'clock—I took care of the key—I believe I gave it to Mr. Tolly, the barber, when he went to shave him—that was about 9 o'clock on the Wednesday—I gave the key to Lavinia Barnes on the Thursday—I afterwards went upstairs into the room—I met Mr. Palmer just coming out of the room as I went in—I locked

the door after he came out—I am not certain whether I looked it, or Mr. Palmer, but it was locked—if he locked it he gave me the key—I gave that key up to Mr. Stevens when he came on the Friday—I think I gave it to the undertaker.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. What time did you see Mr. Palmer on the Monday evening? A. A little before 12 o'clock—I had not seen him before in the course of the evening—the last train that stops at Rugeley is between 7 and 8 o'clock—that is not the express, the express does not stop at Rugeley—it is necessary for passengers coming from the express to have a fly, or some conveyance, from Stafford—I cannot tell at what time they would arrive in the ordinary course, I should say about 10 o'clock'—when I first went into Mr. Cook's room, he seemed rather irritable—he seemed disappointed that it was not Mr. Palmer; it warn Mr. Palmer he wanted—I thought he seemed worse than he had been—I offered to light his candle, but he told me not, and then I left the room—the conversation I had with him was not above two or three minutes—he was then sitting up in bed—I was not present when he was ill on the Sunday night—I did not hear him say anything about it.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. I think it was Barnes who told you that he was so ill, and which led you to go up stairs? A. Yes—she had in the meanwhile gone to fetch Mr. Palmer—Mr. Palmer came directly after I left the room—I remained on the landing.

Q. What led you to ask Mr. Palmer what relatives the man had? A. I thought he seemed so very ill that I thought it was necessary to know what relatives he had—it was in consequence of the state in which I found him when I went into the room; he appeared very ill, and told Mr. Palmer he thought he should die—I then asked Mr. Palmer the question.

WILLIAM HENRY JONES . I am a surgeon and medical practitioner, living at Lutterwerth. I have been in practice fifteen years—I was intimately acquainted with the deceased, Mr. Cook—lie resided at my house from time to time, he boarded with me occasionally—I had been on terms of intimacy with him nearly five years—he was twenty-eight years of age when he died—he was unmarried—he was of no profession—he was originally educated for the law—in later years he had entirely addicted himself to the turf, and to agriculture a little—he had a farm two or three years ago at Calthorpe—for the last year or two he has had nothing but racing—he kept race horses, and betted on the turf—I do not know when he became acquainted with Palmer—I have known of their intimacy for more than twelve months—he considered my house at Lutterworth as his home lately—I attended him from time to time professionally.

Q. What had been the state of his health? A. His health was generally good—he was not of a very robust constitution—he was a man of active habits, in general—he both hunted and played cricket—I was aware when the Shrewsbury races were about to take place; I had a letter from him—he invited me to come over to see his horse run; I have a letter from him to that effect—I went over in consequence—I spent Tuesday, the 13th, with him, the day bis horse ran; that was Polestar—I was aware that the hone won—I dined with him at the Raven Hotel afterwards—several others dined at the same time—there was a little extra champagne—I staid till 10 o'clock, I did not remain at table till 10—we dined between 6 and 7 o'clock—the party broke up between 8 and 9 o'clock I should imagine—he accompanied me down the town to the house of Mr. Frail—I was going off by the 10 o'clock train—Mr. Frail was clerk of the course—I was present at a

conversation that took place between Cook and Frail, and Whitehouse the jockey, was there—the conversation turned entirely upon racing matters—I saw him produce his betting book to Whitehouse—he calculated the odds and his winnings—I did not overlook the book, I stood by while he had it in his hand—I saw that there were figures in the book, but I did not examine them—he made some statement as to his winnings, that he had taken 7 to 1, to that effect—it was near upon 10 o'clock when I left the hotel—I left Mr. Cook at the door of the hotel—I was constantly with him until 5 minutes to 10 o'clock—he was not the worse for liquor at all that day—he had not drunk too much, net so as to affect his sobriety in the least—he was not at all the worse for liquor—he did not appear to me to be other wise than in his usual health that evening—on the Monday after that I received a letter from Mr. Palmer—I have it here—( Read : "Nov. 18th, 1855. My dear Sir,—Mr. Cook was taken ill at Shrewsbury, and obliged to call in a medical man. Since then, he has been confined to his bed here with a very severe bilious attack combined with diarrhœa, and I think it advisable for you to oome to see him as soon as possible. Signed , William Palmer.")—that letter came to me on the Monday morning—I was very unwell that day—the next day, Tuesday, I went to Rugeley—I arrived by the 3 o'clock train, I believe—I got to the Talbot Arms something about half past 3 o'clock—I immediately proceeded to visit Cook—he expressed himself to me as being very comfortable—he said he had been very ill at Shrewsbury; I do not think anything else passed about What he had suffered at Shrewsbury—he said he bad been very ill at Shrewsbury—he did not tell me what the symptoms were, he said he was obliged to call in a medical man at Shrewsbury—Palmer came to the room where we were, soon afterwards—I examined Cook in Palmer's pre sence—I felt his pulse, it was tolerably natural; his tongue was clean—I remarked to Mr. Palmer, "This is hardly the tongue of a bilious diarrhœa attack"—Palmer replied, "You should have seen it before"—I did not prescribe or recommend anything for him at that time, I did not consider him in my hands at all—I visited him several times in the course of that afternoon—I found that he changed for the better, his spirits were better, and his pulse was better; he was decidedly improving—he vomited in the afternoon—I gave him a little toast and water, and he vomited—he asked me for it—it was in the room—there was no diarrhœa—Mr. Bamford came that evening, somewhere about 7 o'clock—Palmer had previously informed me that he had called in Mr. Bamford to his assistance—when Mr. Bamford came he expressed his opinion that Mr. Cook was going on very satisfactorily.

Q. Was anything then said by Cook about the previous night? A. He objected to the pills of the previous night.

COURT . Q. Did you ask him about them? A. They were mentioned.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. What Was mentioned? A. Merely what he should have; what we should prescribe for him was mentioned, and he objected to having the pills again—something was mentioned about what he was to have—Mr. Cook mentioned the pills first—he objected to baring them—Palmer was there the whole time—Mr. Cook said they made him ill the previous night, and he objected to taking them—I do not recollect to whom he addressed himself—after his objecting to taking the pills, we three medical men withdrew from the room into the passage—Mr. Palmer there proposed that Mr. Bamford should make up the morphine pills, the same as before, at the same time requesting me not to mention to Mr. Cook what they contained, as he objected to the morphine so much—Mr. Bamford

agreed to it—Mr. Bamford then left—I went back to Cook's room—I think Mr. Palmer went with me—I have no recollection how long he stopped there; not long—I was afterwards in Cook's room several times in the course of the evening—I talked, to him a short time, and then left him—he seemed very comfortable all the evening—there was not any more vomiting that I observed—there was no diarrhœa—there was an action on the bowels, but not diarrhœa.

COURT . Q. Did you observe any bilious symptoms? A. No, certainly not, natural.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Did you observe any bilious symptoms about him at all? A. None whatever.

COURT . Q. Were there any symptoms of his having recently suffered from any bilious attack? A. No.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. You say you were in and out in the course of the evening, after Mr. Bamford went away; did Mr. Palmer afterwards leave? A. Yes—he left, and went over to his own house—I should think that was about 8 o'clock—I went with him—I remained with him from a quarter to perhaps half an hour, and then came back to Cook's room—the next time I saw Mr. Palmer in Cook's room was nearly 11 o'clock—he then brought a box of pills with him—he opened it in my presence, and showed me the directions—the directions were written on a slip of paper, which was round the box—he directed my attention to the paper, saying, "What an excellent hand for an old man upwards of eighty to write!"—I did not read the direction through; I merely looked at the handwriting—it was a very good handwriting—Mr. Palmer proposed to Mr. Cook to take those pills—Cook protested very much against it, on the ground that they had made him so ill on the previous night—Palmer repeated the request several times, and at last Cook complied with it, and took them—after he had taken them, we left him, and I went and took some supper—the moment he took the pills he vomited—he vomited into a utensil—search was made in the utensil by Mr. Palmer and by myself, at Mr. Palmer's request, for the pills, to see whether they had been returned—we found nothing but toast and water, no pills—the pills had evidently been retained—he did not take the pills in toast and water—he took them without anything, as far as I recol lect—he could do it—he must have drunk the toast and water previously, I do not know when; he had it by his bed side—I do not think it possible that the contents of the pills could have caused the vomiting, it came too quickly—I should say that the act of swallowing could not have done it—after the vomiting, he lay down to rest, and we left him—he appeared quiet after that.

Q. You have said that he seemed better; before that, had he become stronger than he was when you first arrived? A. Yes—he expressed himself so—he had got out of bed, and sat on a chair—that was before Palmer came and gave him these pills—I can hardly recollect whether it was between the time when I went over with Palmer to his house, and the time that he came with the pills, or whether it was earlier than that—in the course of the evening before he took the pills, his spirits were very good, and he was very jocose—he was laughing and joking, speaking of what he should do during the winter; that he intended to ride and hunt again—he spoke of his future plans and prospects—after Cook had taken the two pills which Palmer brought at 11 o'clock, I went down stairs, and took a little supper—I returned at very nearly 12 o'clock—it had then been arranged, at his request, that I should sleep in his room that night—it was a double bedded

room—after going up stairs, I talked to him for a few minutes, and then went to bed—at the time when I last talked to him, before I got into bed, he appeared rather sleepy, but quite as well as usual—I wished him to go to sleep—there was nothing at all about him to excite any apprehension—I had been in bed about ten minutes, I should imagine, when he suddenly raised himself up in bed—I was not asleep—as far as I can imagine, it was about ten minutes, I cannot say how the time went—he suddenly started up in bed, and called out these words, "Doctor, get up! I am going to be ill; ring the bell for Mr. Palmer"—I did ring the bell—the chambermaid came to the door, and Cook himself called out to her, "Fetch Mr. Palmer"—he asked me to rub his neck—before that, he asked me to give him something—I said I had nothing with me; Mr. Palmer would be there directly—he was sitting up in bed at that time.

Q. Did you observe whether there was anything in the expression of his countenance? A. Nothing very particularly; in feet, the room was rather dark, I could not observe—he then asked me to rub his neck—I do not think he said why—he said, "Bub my neck"—I rubbed the back part of his neck for him, and supported him in my arms at the time, while I was rubbing him.

Q. Did you observe anything about the back of the neck while you were rubbing? A. It was stiff, a sort of hardness there appeared about the neck, a stiffness of the muscles—Palmer came very soon indeed after the chambermaid went away, two or three minutes at the utmost—he made the remark when he came in, "I was never so quickly dressed in my life" did not observe how he was dressed, I was so engaged with this poor fellow in my arms at the time.

Q. Did he bring anything with him? A. He gave him two pills, I think he brought? A. with him; he told me they were ammonia pills—Cook swallowed? A. directly he had swallowed? A. he uttered loud screams—directly he had swallowed? A. he threw himself back in his bed, and was dreadfully convulsed—that certainly could not have been from the action of the last taken pills, as they had been taken immediately before—he said to me, "Raise me up, or I shall be suffocated"—the convulsions lasted from five to ten minutes, I should think—that was not before he called out to be raised up, it was at the time; it was at the commencement of the convulsions—he threw himself with a sudden jerk back upon the bed—it was just afterwards that he called out to be raised up, just after he was down—the convulsions then set in violently—the convulsions extended over all the muscular fibres; there was a violent contraction of every muscle of the body, and stiffening of the limbs—when he called out to me to raise him up lest he should be suffocated, I endeavoured to do so, with the assistance of Mr. Palmer, but found it quite impossible, owing to the rigidity of the limbs—when he found that we could not raise him up, he asked me to turn him over—I did so—he was quite sensible—listened to the action of his heart—that was after I had turned over—I found it gradually to weaken—I requested Mr. Palmer to go and fetch some spirits of ammonia for him, to revive the action of the heart, as a stimulant, in hopes of reviving him—Palmer went to his house, and fetched the bottle—he was gone for a very short period, I should say not above a minute; he was very quick indeed—when he came back the heart was gradually sinking, and life was almost extinct, and he died very quietly at last—he died very soon after Palmer returned, he was not able to take the ammonia when he came—from the time that he first

roused me and raised himself in his bed, until he died, I suppose from ten minutes to a quarter of an hour elapsed.

Q. Of what, in your judgment as a medical man, did he die? what was the proximate cause of death? A. He died from tetanus—the meaning of the word tetanus is lock-jaw, that is the common term.

COURT . Q. Lock jaw is a symptom of tetanus? A. Yes, one of the symptoms, but every muscle of the body was affected in the same manner, with violent spasm.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. How should you express in ordinary English the general symptoms of what you call tetanus, in one word? A. Violent spasmodic affection of all the muscles of the body—that affection causes death by stopping the action of the heart—it affects, the respiratory muscles, and so stops the action of the lungs as well—it is that spasm of the respiratory muscles that causes the sense of suffocation—when the death took place he was still on his side—he was still on his side after he was dead—I did not turn the body on its back.

Q. Did you observe what was the outward appearance of the body imme diately after the death? A. It was very dark; I could not mike the observation I should, there was only one candle in the room.

COURT . Q. You could make no observation as to the colour of his skin? A. No, I could not.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Had you any opportunity of observing in what position his hands were? A. Yes, clenched—both hands were clenched; the left hand particularly, that I had in my hands—I observed the clenching of the hands immediately after the attack took place, as he threw himself back in the bed—that was immediately after his taking the pills that Palmer brought over—I did not see the hands clenched when I was rubbing his neck.

Q. Did you observe, either before or at the time, of death, or immediately afterwards, anything in the position of the head and neck? A. Yes, the head was quite, bent back, I mean into an unnatural position.

COURT . Q. By spasmodic action? A. Yes.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Did you observe whether there was any effect produced by spasmodic action in the form of the body, as regarded the back? A. Yes, the body was twisted back like a bow, twisted quite, back.

COURT . Q. When did you observe that appearance? A. Immediately after death, or at the time—all the time—after he threw himself back, it was immediately drawn back.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. If you had placed the body at that time, on the back, in what position would it have rested? A. On the head and heels—if I had placed that body in a position on a plane surface, it would have rested on the head and heels—I did not observe anything at the time of death, or immediately after, about the jaw; his face was turned away from me, I could not observe that—after death I saw that the jaw was all affected by spasm; the side of the jaw, the side of the face, every muscle, of the body.

Q. After death did Palmer say anything to you on the subject of any claim that he had upon Cook? A. Yes, it was mentioned afterwards that he had a claim upon Cook—that was that night, it was not exactly a claim—it was some time after Ms death, that night—Palmer remained from half an hour to an hour after the death, I should think—he did not desire me to send the women servants in to him, that was a suggestion of my own—I

wished to have some women to lay him out—I went out of the room to speak to the housekeeper, and told the two servants to go in, the two maids who were sitting on the steps just by, while I went down stairs—I remained down stairs a few minutes with Miss Bond, the housekeeper, and then returned, and fouad Mr. Palmer in the room with Mr. Cook's coat in his hand—he remarked to me, "You, being his nearest friend, had bitter take possession of his valuables," or "of his effects or something of that sort—I took possession of his watch, and his purse, containing five sovereigns and 5 s . or 6 s .—that was all the money I could and belonging to him—I could not find any betting book, or any papers—there were two letters which I had brought with me from the country—I had given them to Cook, and he said he would see? A. in the morning—they had not, been opened—he would not open? A. then, he told me to open them I just broke the seal, and gave then to him—they were letters of his brother in law, of no impor tance—after that, before Palmer left, he said that it was a bad thing for him that Mr. Cook was dead, for he was responsible for money of Cook's—he said, "I am responsible for some 3,000 l . or 4,000 l . and I hope Mr. Cook's friends will not let me lose it; if they do not assist me, all my hones will be seized"—nothing was said by him about securities, or papers, or anything of that sort, nothing mow definite than, that—I was present on the Friday whan Mr. Stevens, the step-father, came—I heard some remarks between them on the subject of the funeral—Mr. Palmer said that if Mr. Stevens did not bury him, he should himself—I do not recollect any expression then by Mr. Stevens as to burying him—I do not recollect how that observation arose—Mr. Stevens, My. Palmer myself and Mr. Bamford dined together at the Talbot Arms that day, about 3 o'clock, and after dinner Mr. Stevens requested me to go and look for Cook's betting book, Palmer being them present—Mr. Stevens was going to London by the train—we went and searched, and Palmer came with me—he followed me immediately after I went out of the room—he had told me previously to that, on the night that Cook died, that the betting book would be of no use to any one, but it most probably would be found—it was taking possession of the effects on the night of the deiyth which led me to have conversation with him about the subject of the betting book—I think I made an observation on the subject—we just looked for the book, it was very cursory, it was of no consequence—I looked for it, but certainly did not find it—made no particular remark on not finding it—he said that it was sure to be found, it was of no use to any one—he knew what I was looking for—I said, "Where is the betting book?" or something of that kind; and then on that he said, "I have no doubt it will be found, but it is of no use to any one"—he said, "The beta are void"—I am sure he said that—"When a person dies," he said, "all the beta are void"—I am not acquainted with the turf at all—on the Friday, Palmer went up stairs with me to Cook's room, when we looked for the betting book—he looked on that occasion—I could not find it, and he came down stairs with me, and I told the, maid servant to go up and search among his linen, a second search—after that I went into the room where Mr. Stevens was, and told him that I could not find it—Palmer went in with me—I do not recollect the remark Mr. Stevens made—on that evening, when I had sent the maid servants in to speak to Mr. Palmer on the subject of the women laying out the body, I went down stairs, but was mot absent move than two or three minutes before I returned to the room.

COURT . Q. In the consultation that you three medical men had on the

Tuesday night, was anything said about the symptoms that had occurred the night before? A. Nothing.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You pursue the medical profession seriously, as a means of living, is that so? A. Yes—I am a regularly educated medical man, and a licentiate of the Apothecaries' Com pany—when I was a younger man I endeavoured to qualify myself for the practice of my profession, and I have done so since—Mr. Cook lived a good deal at my house lately—his health was pretty fair, pretty good—he had been ill occasionally, slight illness—I know that he bad been under treat ment by Dr. Savage, for some time—he had not been treating himself a good deal with mercury—I know that he had a sore throat for a consider able time, two or three months—it was bad in the summer, and was slightly ulcerated, not a very extreme case, slightly, at the back part of the tongue—he could swallow, but it gave him a little pain occasionally, it depended a good deal upon what he did swallow—I know that he did apply caustic to his tongue, and had it done—he used to do that two months before his death—he did not, till after he had ceased to do it, complain of occasional pain in his throat or tongue—I did not see much of him during those two months, but occasionally—he came and stayed two or three days at a time, and went away again—he attended most of the races—I never heard him mention any specks that appeared on his body—he expressed apprehension of his being affected by secondary symptoms of venereal disease; of syphilis—his habits were very correct, generally speaking, but he occasionally indulged himself—I do not know that he was then not very particular—I know that he had a chancre, but not at the time he died—twelve months ago I believe he had one—I was not aware that when he died he had a chancre on his penis; not till you mentioned it—I was not present at the post mortem examination—he was much reduced in circumstances to my know ledge at the time he died—he had been before, but he was rather redeeming his position, I understood—he told me so—that was by racing—I had no accurate knowledge of his affairs—I did not know that he was continually in the want of small sums of money—he never told me that, and I did not observe it—Polestar was his principal horse—I do not know much about racing matters—I know that he had several horses, and that he had some in which he was joint owner with Palmer—there was a mare, Pereine, which was under the care of Saunders, the trainer—I was at the races with him at Shrewsbury—he was very anxious before the race came off; I know that it was of great importance to him—he was very excited after the race was run, I did not observe it before—he was very excited just for a few moments—he could not speak for two or three minutes, and was elated and happy the rest of the evening—I am not a racing man myself—he did not drink freely on that Tuesday, he was a temperate man—I left Shrewsbury at 10 o'clock that evening, and do not know any more—the last I heard of him was from the letter of Palmer—Palmer knew very well who I was, and that I was in practice at Lutterworth—Cook objected to taking the morphia pills because they made him ill—he said that Dr. Savage had recommended him not to take calomel or opium—the effect of morphia would be to make him sleep, to soothe him, and enable him to take his rest, that was the inten tion—opium will constipate the bowels, it may be in a slight degree—Cook sat up in the afternoon, but did not sit long—when he was first attacked the night before, after he had got to bed, I was roused up, and when Palmer came, he said, "Palmer, give me the remedy you gave me the night before"—I should think I was five minutes rubbing his neck—after he was turned

over, but a few minutes elapsed before he died, three or four minutes—he died very quietly, we could hardly tell when he did die—it was at that time that I put my face to his heart—from that time he was composed and died quietly—I know very well what tetanus is; I have seen cases from wounds of traumatic tetanus—I spoke about tetanus at the inquest; you will find in my deposition to that effect, convulsions and tetanus—I stated so at the time—I said that I could not tell the cause, I was taken so by surprise at the time—( The ATTORNEY-GENERAL . produced the original deposition, in which the word "compression" had been erased, and "tetanus" inserted, which had afterwards been altered to "violent convulsions" )—I did say, "I cannot tell the cause, I imagined that it was from over excitement"—my deposition was read over to me before I signed it—I do not think I read it myself, but I well remember using the term "tetanus"—I put my name to the deposition, that was all—( The deposition was here read ).

Q. In your deposition you say, "I had been in bed a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes;" your impression to-day is ten minutes; was not it twenty minutes? A. I think not—I do not think I had begun to doze.

Q. Do you remember the last scream, when he fell over, after having the pills; have you at any time stated that you thought he died of epilepsy I A. I do not imagine I have said so, Mr. Bamford said that it was apo plexy, and I said I thought it was not—I could not make up my mind what fit it was—I said that it was more like epilepsy than apoplexy—I never met with forms of epileptic seizure in convulsions in which the mind does con tinue unaffected; it is always so in hysteria—I do not know Mr. Pratt at all—I brought Cook a letter from Mr. Pratt, of Lutterworth, and Cook told me to open it—I cannot state what it was, they were matters in which I never mixed up with him—he did not read it—he said, "I know the effect of it, let it be till to-morrow morning"—he did not seem in doubt about it—I had very little opportunity while I was at Rugeley of knowing anything of the sort of racing establishment that Palmer had—I went into his paddocks and saw mares, some with foal, and some in foal—it appeared a very good establishment.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. You are not much acquainted with the value of race horses, to know a good one from a bad one? A. No, I under stand other horses very well—these horses of Palmer's were race horses—Mr. Cook told me that—they had tossed up for the mare called Pereine, that Palmer won; it was win or lose—Polestar was Cook's sole property—it was twelve months ago that he had chancre—I attended him for it—I sometimes attended him for sore throat, and sometimes he would consult Dr. Savage when he was up in town—he consulted several medical men when he was up in town; so he told me, and they had told him so—I have only seen one case of tetanus in my life, and that was from a wound on the thumb; it ended in death—the patient was three days in dying—the convulsions there were not as severe as these—the principal spas modic action was the locking of the jaw—the patient died of lockjaw and muscular convulsions—after Cook's death, Mr. Bamford said that he thought it was apoplexy; I said that it was more like epilepsy—I have seen cases of epilepsy, there are not there such symptoms as convulsive spasms; and consciousness is lost—there is no rigidity of the muscles, and the symptoms are quite different—in apoplexy, consciousness is lost—I am quite confident in my own mind that it was not apoplexy.

COURT . Q. You thought that the sore throat was venereal, and several other medical men thought so too? A. Cook told me that several other medical men

thought so too—ifhe had any secondary symphoms, or syphills, they most deci dedly could not produce the symptoms I saw on Tuesday nighty and for two months preceding his death he was dear of them; his throat was quite well.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . to LAVINIA BARNES . Q. On Monday morning did Mr. Cook say to you that he had been very ill on the Sunday night, just before 12 o'clock, and had rung the bell for some one to attend to him, but he thought you had all gone to bed? A. Yes, he did; he said that he was nearly ringing the bell, but he thought they were all gone to bed—he did not say that he bad rung it.

MR. ATTORKEY-GENERAL . Q. Did he tell you what it was that had alarmed him? A. No, he did not.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . to ELIZABETH MILLS . Q. Do you remember, when you went into Mr. Cook's room on the Monday morning, his telling you about his having been disturbed in the night? A. Yes; he said, "I was just mad for two minutes"—I believe I asked him what sort of a night he had had, and he said that he was just mad for two minutes—I said, "Why did you not ring the bell?"—he said, "I thought you would all be fast asleep, and not hear it"—before I asked him why he did not ring the bell, he did not tell me what had occasioned that feeling—I believe after I had spoken about ringing the bell, he said we should all be last asleep and not hear it, and the illness passed over, and he tried to manage without us, without calling us up—he said he thought he was disturbed by hearing a quarrelling in the street—he did not say what effect the quarrelling had had upon him—that was all he said that I can remember—he said that he might have been asleep, the quarrel might have disturbed him, or some thing of that sort.

DR. HENRY SAVAGE . I am a physician, living at No. 7, Gloucester-place. I knew the deceased Mr. Cook very well in past years, professionally—I have known him about four years—he has been in the habit of consulting me professionally during the last four years—he was not robust—his general health was good, for a man not robust—I only suspected that he was at all of a pulmonary disposition from his complaining of his throat, which induced me to examine his chest with that view—he came to me in May, 1855, but I saw him just before, early in the spring, and I saw him later in the autumn, Nov., 1854—it was for simple indigestion—if he felt a little out of order when he came to town, he used to call on me—in the spring of 1855, when he came to me, the old affair of indigestion was one sub ject of his visit, but he was anxious about some slight spots, one on his forehead and one on his arm—he had two shallow ulcers on the tongue, which I found corresponded to two bad teeth—I attributed them to the teeth—he said he had been under a mild mercurial course; he imagined that those spots were what he called secondary symptoms, but I was of a different opinion—I thought they were not, certainly—I think up to the time he saw me he had been taking mercury; he did not show me any prescription—I immediately recommended it's discontinuance, and gave him quinine as a tonic, and an aperient containing cream of tartar, mag nesia, and sulphur—I did not at any time give him antimony—under the treatment which I prescribed, those sores were quite well by the end of May, but he nevertheless continued to come to me—I saw him very frequently in June—he came in June still feeling some little anxiety about my treatment, and my notion that it was not secondary symptoms—I was anxious, I felt there was some difference of opinion between me and the medical man in the country—supposing I might be wrong, it would be

damaging to my reputation and injurious to him—whenever he came I always examined him carefully—my attention was directed to his throat—he never had the least ulceration of the throat, the tonsils were slightly enlarged, there was very little tonsil on one side and an enlarged one on the other—it was only one of those cases of diseased tonsil to which any body may be subject, there were no indications of a syphilitic character; in my opinion—he continued under my treatment till a fortnight before his death—I saw him on 3rd or 5th Nov., I saw him on 29th Oct., and it was about a week afterwards—I examined him on 29th Oct., and the last time I examined him particularly, because I thought he was going away—I recommended him to leave the turf and go abroad—I examined his chest, and imagined that his left lung was slightly touched—there was some slight indication of pulmonary affection of the left lung, which afterwards disappeared, but I dwelt on it, as I wanted to get him away from his turf associations—I wished him to go abroad for two years—on that occasion I carefully examined him—I did not confine my ob-servation to the upper parts; as it was an open question with regard to the secondary symptoms, I examined his penis, and thought there was nothing venereal about it; there was a very shallow scar from a former excoriation, to which he said that he was liable—that was not what we usually call chancre, and there was no sore on any part of the body—that was the case up to the 3rd or 5th Nov.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. He was strongly in favour of mercury? A. No, but he was a weak man, and very apt to take the advice of any person—I think he had a little more sense than to be likely to take quack medicine, but he would do this, he would have his throat cauterised by any professional friend he might be in company with—he was weak enough to yield—he was hipped on the subject of his throat—the last time I saw him he had a redness over one tonsil, showing that there was a tenderness; I hardly know what term to apply to it, but that sort of sore throat which is caused by a redness—he was not in a state in which brandy and water pretty strong would do him good, it would not do him good under any circumstances—there were very trivial ulcers on his lips—he was quite well in May, but there was a slight-redness of the tonsils.

CHARLES NEWTON . I am assistant to Mr. Salt, a practising surgeon; of Rugeley. I know William Palmer—I saw him on Monday evening, 19th Nov., at Mr. Salt's surgery—he came there about 9 o'clock—I was alone when he came—he asked me for three grains of strychnia—I weighed it accurately, and gave it to him, folded up in a small paper, as a powder—it is a white powder—he did not make any remark—he said, "Good night," and took it away with him—he did not pay me for it—I gave it to him—knew him to be a medical man, and I made no charge—we do not sell drugs to ordinary persons—our's is a surgery—we do occasionally sell pills, or any thing of that kind, or salts, but we have not a retail shop—we sell medicine, as apothecaries, made up, but we do not sell strychnia to an ordinary person coming—I should not think he was in the shop two minutes, just while I accurately weighed it—I saw Palmer again on 20th Nov., the following day, Tuesday, at Mr. Hawkins's shop, a druggist—I am not quite sure, but I think it was between 11 and 12 o'clock in the day—we have our drugs from there when we are out, but we deal in London—I am in the habit very frequently of calling in at Mr. Hawkins's shop as I go by—Mr. Palmer was in the shop when I went in—he asked me how I was, and put his hand on my shoulder, and said that he wished to speak to me, I went with him to the door—we

did not go to the door only, but into the street—when we got to the door, Mr. Palmer went a little distance from the door into the street, and asked me when Mr. Edwin Salt was going to his farm; and while he was talking, a person named Brassington, a cooper, came up—Edwin Salt is the son of the chemist—the farm is at Sudbury, perhaps fourteen miles from Rugeley—I never was there—Palmer had nothing to do with the farm at all, but it was a rumour in the town—Brassington stopped and spoke to me, and while he was speaking to me Palmer went away—he remained in the same place while Brassington spoke to me—Brassington had two bills for Mr. Salt, bills due from Mr. Salt for work done for him—he spoke to me about those bills, and engaged my attention, and Palmer left, and went back again into the shop—I afterwards saw him come out of the shop—I was then still talking to Brassington in the street—I am not sure whether Palmer spoke to me when he came out, but he went by me—I was talking to Brassington at the time—he went towards his own house, which is about 200 or 300 yards from Mr. Hawkins's shop—after my conversation with Brassington was ended, I went into Mr. Hawkins's shop—there is a person named Roberta, an apprentice to Mr. Hawkins—he was in the shop when I went in—when I went into the shop something was said about Palmer—I know a man of the name of Thirlby—he deals in drugs—he if the man who succeeded to Palmer's business—Thirlby's name was not mentioned in my conversation with Roberts—I know, of my own knowledge, that Palmer bought drugs of Thirlby—Thirlby generally dispenses Palmer's medicines—I mean by that, that he makes up the medicine—he acts in Palmer's name—if Palmer wishes to give medicine to a patient, Thirlby makes it up—I always understood that Thirlby succeeded to the business which Palmer had, and that that was so in Nov.—on Sunday, 25th Nov., at 7 o'clock in the evening, I was sent for to Palmer's house—I am not quite sure who came for me, but I went in consequence of being sent for—I found Palmer in his kitchen, sitting by the fire, reading—he asked me how I was, and asked me to have a little brandy—I am not quite sure whether I sat down—I had some brandy and water—there was no one else present—he asked me, "What would be the dose of strychnine you would give to kill a dog?"—I told him, "A grain"—he asked me whether it would be found in the stomach; what would be the appearance of the stomach after death—I told him there would be no inflammation, and that I did not think it would be found—upon that, 11 think, he said that it would be all right, and did that ( snapping his fingers )—he said it to himself, and I saw him do that—we talked about some ordinary matters of conversation afterwards—he made some other remarks, occasional remarks on common subjects—I was with him in the kitchen that evening perhaps five minutes, or more—on Monday, the 26th, I heard that a post mortem examination of Cook's body was to take place that day—I asked Mr. Salt if he was going to Mr. Bamford's to make the post mortem examination, and he went down with me to Mr. Bamford's, to ask him to let me go—Mr. Bamford was not there, and I went with Mr. Salt down the town, in his gig, and met Mr. Bamford near the church, asked whether he was going to the post mortem , and he said that he was not—I did not see Palmer—I saw him in the study of Mr. Bamford's house before we went to the post mortem examination—that was after breakfast, perhaps about 10 o'clock; I am not quite certain—he asked me what I wanted—I told him I was going to the post mortem examination—he asked me whether Mr. Salt was going—I told him that he was engaged, and could not go—I took some instruments and other things which were necessary, and

went down to the Talbot Arms, to the examination—Dr. Harland went down with me—I know Mr. Frere—he is a surgeon, practising at Rugeley—after we got to the Talbot Arms, Dr. Harland went away for a short time, and the other doctors went away together, and left Palmer and me together—we were left together in, I think, the entrance hall—we were alone together, and Palmer said, "It will be a dirty job, and I shall go and have a little brandy; will you go with me?"—I went with him to his house, which is opposite, and had two wine glasses of neat brandy, and I saw him drink two glasses—when I was there he said to me, "You will find this fellow suffering from diseased throat; he has had syphilis, and has taken a great deal of mercury"—I afterwards went over with him to the post mortem examination, and found that the other medical men had returned—Palmer was watching at the window—while the post mortem examination was going on, Palmer stood near Mr. Bamford, against the fire—I was examined before the Coroner, but did not say anytning there about my having given to Palmer three grains of strychnia on the night of 9th Nov.—I first stated that to Cheshire, the postmaster.

Cross-examined by , MR. GROVE . Q. When did you first mention that about the three grains to anybody? A. It was after the inquest, it was a week ago from now.

COURT . Q. How long after the inquest? A. It might be a week after, or it might be three days, it was very near.

MR. GROVE . Q. Might it have been a fortnight? A. I should think net—I think I can undertake to say that it was less than a fortnight—after the inquest I was examined on behalf of the Crown for the purpose of giving evidence, as I am now doing; it was some time afterwards, I really cannot undertake to say how long—it was after the in quest, and after I mentioned it to Cheshire—I cannot undertake to say how long after, I really cannot recollect within a month; I do not know, and I cannot say—when I was first examined for that purpose, I did not say anything about this purchase of three grains of strychnia—when I was first examined on behalf of the Crown, I mentioned the circumstance of the poisoning of the dog by strych-nia—that was not the first time I had mentioned that conversation, I men tioned it to Mr. Salt—I cannot say at what time, I cannot tell you within a month—I have been examined twice for the purpose of giving my evi dence here; I made a statement to Mr. Gardner—that was not before the inquest, but after it—I cannot say at what time it was, but it was after—I mentioned to him the conversation about the dog, but not about the three grains of strychnia—I did not say anything at the inquest about the con versation with respect to the dog, or with respect to the three grains of strych-nia—I mentioned about the conversation of Cook's suffering from diseased throat syphilis—I did not state that at the inquest, I was not questioned as to the post mortem examination at all—I was examined before the Coroner, about Palmer going to Hawkins, and gave evidence of a conversation with Palmer at the door of Mr. Hawkins—I of course heard that he had pur chased, or was alleged to have purchased, strychnine at Mr. Hawkins's shop.

Q. You knew that your evidence bore reference to the purchase of strychnine at that shop? A. After Roberts gave his evidence, Mr. Gardner sent his clerk to me.

COURT . Q. Did you know that your evidence was connected with the supposed circumstance of strychnine being bought at Hawkins's shop? A. Yes, I did.

MR. GROVE . Q. You stated, I believe, before the Coroner, that the

strychnine was purchased on Saturday? A. No, I did not—what I stated was taken down in writing, it was read over to me, and I signed it—( The witness's original deposition, being read, stated, that the strychnine was purchased on Tuesday. )

Q. Now, can you tell me when you first gave evidence, or gave a copy of what you could say, to the Crown, as to the purchase of three grains of strychnine on the Monday? A. On Tuesday last.

Q. You have told us that Mr. Palmer said, "You will find this fellow suffer ing from diseased throat;" when you gave your evidence to the Coroner, did you say, "You will find this poor fellow?" A. I do not know whether I said poor or rich—Palmer said, "You will find him suffering from diseased throat"—I know that there is a difference between poor and rich, but I cannot say what I do not recollect, I cannot say now which he said—I was at the post mortem examination—I did not point out a chancre to the medical men there—I do not think I pointed out any tiling of disease of the penis; I do not recollect saying so—I did not mention it to Dr. Harland, and I do not think I made any remark about his penis to any of the medi cal men; and I do not recollect any remark being made about it—I saw it—it looked healthy, I did not see a chancre, or the mark of one; I did not examine it—I should think the distance from Dr. Bamford's house to the Talbot Arms is, perhaps, more than 100 yards.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. You said that you gave information to the Coroner about this gift of the three grains of strychnine, on Tuesday? A. I did—I did not give it before, when Mr. Gardner first examined me, on account of Mr. Palmer not being friends with Mr. Salt, they never spoke to each other, and I thought Mr. Salt would be displeased at my letting him have anything from the surgery—Mr. Salt and Mr. Palmer did not speak to each other; Mr. Thirlby, Mr. Palmer's assistant, lived with Mr. Salt nineteen years and Mr. Palmer left Thirlby a sum of money, he took him in—it was in consequence of Thirlby going to Palmer that this difference took place—Mr. Thirlby docs not speak to Mr. Salt, or Mr. Palmer either; that is through Mr. Palmer taking Thirlby away from Mr. Salt—that was my only reason for keeping it back—I communicated it first to Cheshire, the postmaster—I on Tuesday last, when I first communicated it to the Crown, I did it volun tarily, I thought it my duty to do it—I first mentioned it on Tuesday to Boycott, the clerk to Mr. Gardner—I saw him at the Rugeley station—I was then coming up to London, and was at the station for that purpose—I met all the witnesses there, saw Boycott, went to him, and asked him if I could see Mr. Gardner.

COURT . Q. You were coming up to attend the trial? A. I was sub pœnaed, and came up by the same train with the other witnesses by the 8.15 train from Rugeley.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Did you tell Boycott what you wanted to see Mr. Gardner for? A. I did; and he brought me straight to Mr. Gardner in London, as soon as I arrived—I was then brought to this gentle man, the solicitor to the Treasury—in the meantime I had communicated to Mr. Gardner what I had to say.

COURT . for MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Have not you given another and a different reason; that reason being that you should be indicted for perjury? A. Yes; but I did not give it as a reason, I mentioned it to the gentleman sitting there—I stated to him all about a young man from Wolverhampton, whom Mr. George Palmer had transported for perjury, because he could not produce a book when he had sold him prussic acid—that was on the inquisi tion on Walter Palmer.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. What did you say to the solicitor about the young man from Wolverhampton? A. That a young man from Mander and Weaver's, was threatened to be indicted for perjury by George Palmer, the brother of William, because he had sold the prisoner some prussic acid—that young man had said on the inquest on Walter Palmer, that he had sold the prisoner prussic acid, and he did not enter it in the book, and could not prove it, and that George Palmer said that he would transport him—I did not enter these three grains of strychnine in my book.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Did not the inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Walter Palmer take place five or six weeks after the inquest on the body of Cook? A. Yes, but that was not my reason for not saying it before.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Was it after the inquest on Walter Palmer that you were first examined on the part of the Crown? A. Yes.

Adjourned.

Friday, May 16 th , 1856.

CHARLES JOSEPH ROBERTS . In Nov. last I was an apprentice to Mr. Hawkins, a druggist at Rugeley. I know the prisoner, William Palmer—on Tuesday, 20th Nov., he came into Mr. Hawkins's shop—I believe it was between 11 and 12 o'clock in the day—he asked first, for two drachms of prussic acid—he brought a bottle for it—I was putting it up for him when Mr. Newton, the assistant to Mr. Salt, came into the shop—Palmer told him he wanted to speak to him, and they went out of the shop together—I know a person of the name of Brassington, a cooper—after Palmer had gone out of our shop, I saw Brassington, he took Newton away from Palmer—I saw that—he got into conversation with him—you can see from the shop window into the street clearly—when Brassington took Newton away with him in conversation, Palmer came back again into the shop.

COURT . Q. What were you doing when Palmer came back? A. I was putting up the prussic acid into his bottle.

MR. JAMES . Q. You were in the act of putting up the prussic acid; what did he say to you when he came back? A. He asked for six grains of strychnia and two drachms of Battley's solution of opium—that is what is commonly called Battley's sedative—the prussic acid remained on the counter while I was putting up the other—I had put up the prussic acid ready for him, and then he asked for the six grains of strychnia and the Battley's sedative, and I placed the prussic acid on the counter—I was behind the counter pre paring these things—while I was behind the counter preparing these things for the prisoner, he was standing at the shop door—he ordered the things at the counter—it was while I was preparing? A. he moved from the counter to the street door—I do not know which way he was looking while he was standing at the street door—he was looking into the street, with his back to me, standing in the doorway—I took about five minutes in the prepara tion of these things for him before I delivered? A. to him—he remained standing at the door until I was ready to give him the things—I then deli vered the things to him, the prussic acid in the bottle which he had brought and the strychnia delivered in a paper.

COURT . Q. The quantity he had ordered? A. Yes.

MR. JAMES . Q. Six grains and the Battley's solution of opium, the seda tive? A. Yes, in a phial—he took? A. away—he paid for them—from the time Mr. Palmer returned to the shop after he left Mr. Newton, until

the time 1 delivered him these things, there was no other person in the shop—after the prisoner had left with these things, Mr. Newton came into the shop—I had some conversation with him—he made some remark to me—I had been six years, previously to that Nov., in Mr. Hawkins's employment—it was about two years before this since the prisoner had ever bought any drugs at our shop—I know Mr. Thirlby, he had been assistant to Mr. Palmer, and had opened a chemist's shop about two years before, and since that date, I had never sold him any drugs until this Tuesday to my knowledge.

COURT . Q. Thirlby was still carrying on the business at that time? A. Yes.

MR. JAMES . Q. Besides having a chemist's shop, is Thirlby practising as an apothecary, or dispensing medicines? A. Yes, I believe he is, in Palmer's name.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. I presume you made an entry of the sale to Mr. Palmer in your book? A. No.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Do you make entries where you take ready money across the counter? A. No.

COURT . Q. Did you make an entry of this prussic acid or sedative? A. No—I did not make an entry of any of these things.

WILLIAM VERNON STEVENS . I am in no business now; I have retired from business—I was the step-father of the deceased Mr. John Parsons Cook—I married his father's widow eighteen years ago—I have known the young man intimately ever since that.

COURT . Q. Was he brought up in your family? A. No, he did not reside very generally with me—his mother died soon after our marriage, and some years after I was made the executor under his paternal grandfather's will.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Were you on friendly terms with him? A. Always, most intimate.

COURT . Q. Had you the care of him? A. I had the care constantly of him.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. I believe he became entitled to a sum of money? A. To some property—I should think altogether he has had about 12,000 l .—I am hardly prepared to say the exact amount he had, but about 12,000 l .—he was articled to a solicitor at Worthing, in Sussex—he did not follow up that profession—he betook himself to the turf, to racing pursuits recently—I have known so little about these matters, and have always set my face against them so much, that I can hardly say at what period that was; I think about three or four years: his earliest betting book that I find is in 1853 I think, perhaps in 1852; the dates are not very distinct—I did everything in my power to withdraw him from that pursuit—the last time, prior to his death, that I saw him, was at 2 o'clock on the afternoon of 5th Nov.

COURT . Q. You continued on friendly terms with him? A. Yes, most affectionate terms.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Where was it that you last saw him? A. At the station at Euston-square—I have some recollection that he then told me he was going to Rugeley; I am not quite sure.

Q. In what state of health was he at that time? A. He looked better than I had seen him for a very long time—I was so gratified that I said, "My boy, you look very well; you do not look anything of an invalid now"—he said nothing to induce me to think he felt otherwise—he struck him self firmly on the chest, and said, "Oh, I am all right!"—he merely said he was quite well, quite right—I think he added, that if he was quite happy

he should be all right—in point of appearance he was not a robust man; he was very pale in complexion.

Q. Had there been to your knowledge anything the matter with him recently before that time? A. For some months in the previous winter he had a sore throat, some months before—he was staying with me then—I did not see him again until after his death, when he was a corpse—I first heard of his death on Wednesday evening, 21st Nov.—Mr. Jones, the surgeon, of Lutterworth, gave me the information—he came to my house to inform me—that was on the Wednesday—on the next day, Thursday, I went down with Mr. Jones to Lutterworth—that was to search for his will and any papers he had left—we found a will—the next morning we went to Rugeley—we got there between 12 and 1 o'clock, I think—as soon as I arrived at the inn I asked to see the body—I was then accompanied by Palmer—I met Palmer in the passage of the Talbot Arms—I believe I had once seen him before; I did not know him—Mr. Jones introduced me to him in the inn passage—he followed us up stairs to see the body—Palmer removed the sheet from the body to rather below the waist; I think the thighs were partially uncovered.

Q. Was there anything about the appearance of the countenance that struck you? A. Yes, I was very much struck by the appearance of the countenance—the first thing I noticed was a tightness of the muscles across the face—it was that tightness of the muscles across the face; that princi pally struck me—there did not appear to me to be any emaciation from disease—after I had looked at the countenance of the deceased we all went down stairs—Mr. Jones was present when I saw the corpse.

Q. Did you make any inquiry of Palmer on the subject of Cook's affairs? A. After some time—we were in one of the sitting rooms in the inn—I said, "I hear from Mr. Jones, Mr. Palmer, that you know something of my son's affairs, can you tell me anything about them?" he replied, "Yes, there are 4,000 l . worth of bills out of his, and I am sorry to say my name is to them but I have got a paper drawn up by a lawyer, signed by Mr. Cook, to show that I have never had any benefit from them," or "never had the money," I forget the precise expression—I expressed great surprise, and said, "I fear there will not be four thousand shillings to pay them;" but I said, "Has he no horses, or no property? do you know of nothing?" he said, "Yes, he has horses, but they are mortgaged"—I said, "Has he no sporting debts owing to him, nothing of that sort?" I am stating the words as nearly as I can; he mentioned one debt of 300 l . that was owing to him.

Q. Do you remember the name of the person from whom it was owing? A. Is it material that I should state the name? it would give great pain elsewhere; the man is dying at the present moment; I do not think it is material—it has not been received since—it has had nothing to do with the prisoner, or any party connected with him—it was not a sporting debt, it has nothing whatever to do with it—it was a personal debt from a relative of his for 300 l .—he did not mention any other debt due to him—he said he did not know of any other—I said, I thought his sporting creditors would have to take his sporting debts and make the best of them, for I should pay nothing—I then turned round, and said, "Well, whether he has left anything or not, poor fellow, he must be buried"—Palmer imme diately said, "Oh, I will bury him myself, if that is all"—I said, "Oh, cer tainly I cannot think of your doing that, I shall do it"—Cook's brother-in-law was present, the husband of his sister, he had come there to meet me; he

immediately expressed a great wish to be allowed to bury him; I said, "No, no, that is my business; as his executor I shall take care of that"—he had appointed me his executor under his will—I said, "I cannot have the funeral immediately, because I intend to bury him in London, in his mother's grave; I am very sorry for the inconvenience to the people here at the inn, but I will get it done as soon as possible"—Palmer said, "Oh, that is of no con sequence, but the body ought to be fastened up at once"—he repeated that in other words; he said, "So long as the body is fastened up, a few days' delay is of no consequence, or a day or two"—that terminated the conver sation on that subject for the time—while I was talking to the deceased's brother-in-law, Palmer and Mr. Jones left the room—they returned in about half an hour—on their return I expressed a desire to know from Palmer the name of some respectable undertaker in Rugeley, that I might call in, that I might at once order a coffin, and give directions for the funeral—Palmer said, "Oh, I have been and done that, I have ordered a shell and a strong oak coffin—he did not say to whom he had been—I then expressed my surprise—I said, I think, "I did not give you any authority;" those were the words, some expression of that sort, I expressed my surprise in terms of that kind—I said, "But I must see the undertaker, to give him instructions about the funeral"—I think he told me the name of the undertaker, I am not quite sure—I then ordered dinner for myself and Mr. Bradford, my son-in-law, and Mr. Jones, and I asked Palmer to come and partake of it—we all dined together at the inn—I was going back to London by the quarter past 4 o'clock train—we dined about 3 o'clock—after dinner, before I went away, I desired Mr. Jones to be so good as to go up stairs and get me his betting book or pocket book, or any books or papers that might be there.

Q. Did you know, of your own knowledge, from him that he was in the habit of carrying a betting book? A. I had seen him with a betting book—I do not recollect the sort of book that particular book was; I have seen his other betting books—as one betting book was filled up, he would take ano ther—those I have seen were clasp books, opening longways—upon this request Mr. Jones left the room—Palmer followed him—they returned in, I should think, nearly ten minutes, certainly more than five minutes—Mr. Jones came into the room, and said he was very sorry to say that he could not find any betting book—Palmer was present, he followed him in—Mr. Jones said he could not find any betting book, and I think he added, or papers—I had desired him to search for papers—I said, "No betting book, Mr. Jones!" and turning towards Palmer, I said, "How is this?"—Palmer said, "Oh, it is no manner of use if you find it,"or very nearly those words—I said, "No use, sir! I am the best judge of that"—he again said, "It is of no manner of use"—I said, "I am the best judge of that; I am told it is of use; I understand my son won a great deal of money at Shrewsbury," I am giving the words as nearly as I can, "and I ought to know something about it"—Palmer said, "It is no use, I assure you; when a man dies his bets are done with;" I think those were the words; "besides," he said, "Cook received the greater part of his money on the course at Shrewsbury"—I said, "Very well, sir, the book must be found; it ought to be found, and must be found;" Palmer then, in a much quieter tone, said, "Oh, it will be found, no doubt"—I again said, "Sir, it shall be found"—I then went to the door of the sitting room, and, calling to the housekeeper from the bar, I desired that everything in the deceased's room might be locked up, that nothing might be touched until I returned, or sent some one with authority to take

possession—after that, and prior to leaving, I went up stairs to take a last look at the body—I saw some servants in the room turning over the bed clothes of one of the empty beds—I do not know what for—the undertaker was there—I did not notice any one else—I had before that had commu nication with the undertaker, before I went to dinner—I had given him instructions for sending the body to London—I had given him instruc tions to place the body in the coffin—when I went into the room the undertaker was standing by the side of the shell—the body had been just placed in the shell—I had given directions for that—I had given general directions—I went to the side of the shell—the body was uncovered—I knelt down by the side of the shell; and, taking the right hand of the corpse, I found it fastened in this way ( clenched )—I then looked across the body, and I saw that the left hand was clenched in the same manner—I observed nothing else—I returned immediately to town, and the next morn ing communicated with my London solicitors—I communicated first with the uncle of the deceased, and then with my solicitors—they gave me a letter to Mr. Gardner, of Rugeley—I returned to Rugeley at 2 o'clock on the next day, Saturday—I left London by the 2 o'clock train, and got to Rugeley about 8 o'clock in the evening—on my arrival at the platform at Euston-square I saw Palmer, as I was leaving London—he said that he had received a telegraphic message after I had left Rugeley the night before, which had brought him to London—I think I asked him where Mr. Cook's horses were kept; he told me at Hednesford—I think he said he would drive me out there if I wished it—when I got to Wolverton I saw him again in the refreshment room—the train stops there for a few minutes—I said, "Mr. Palmer, this is a very melancholy thing, the death of my poor son happening so suddenly, and I think for the sake of his brother and sister, who are sometimes delicate in health, it would be desirable to know what his complaints were"—I meant his half-brother and his own sister; I think I said, "It might be desirable that their medical friends should know something of his complaints, and therefore I think I should like his body opened"—to that Palmer replied, "Oh, that can be done very well;" or, "That can be easily done;" or something of that sort—I think nothing more passed then, or very little more, nothing of importance; the bell rang and we went to our seats—he had not travelled with me in the same carriage, he had been in another carriage—he continued in the same Carriage which he had been in before, till we reached Rugby—I then saw him again in the refreshment room—he came to my side, indeed, as I was standing by the fire—I am not quite sure whether it was at that time or upon my arrival at Rugeley that I said to him, "Mr. Palmer, I am living at a distance, and the horses are said to be valuable, I had better ask some solicitor at Rugeley to look after my interests"—he said, "Oh, yes, you can do that; do you know any solicitor at Rugeley?"—I said, "No, I do not"—I believe the bell then ring again, and I ran off to get some refreshment, or for some purpose, and when I came back to my carriage I found Palmer sitting in my carriage; nothing further passed till we reached Rugeley; I had no conversation with him—there was a gentleman and lady in the carriage, with whom I had been conversing all the way from town, and I continued my conversation with them—I arrived at Rugeley between 7 and 8 o'clock; about 8 I think—when we reached Rugeley, Palmer said, "You were talking about a solicitor; do you know any solicitor in Ruge ley?"—I think at that time we had reached the omnibus; I am not quite clear whether this took place on the platform or in the omnibus; we were but a few minutes in the station—I said, "No, I do not; for you know I

am a perfect stranger here"—he then said, "Oh! I know them all inti-mately; I can introduce you to one"—he said, "When I get home I must take a cup of coffee, and as soon as I have had that I will come over and tell you all about them"—I thanked him, as I had done once or twice before, and said I would not trouble him—he then repeated his offer, that he only wanted a cup of coffee, and he would come to me immediately; but he added, "You will not find any solicitor to night"—I said, "Why not?"—he said, "It is late; besides, some of them live out of town"—I "Well," I said, "I never found any difficulty in finding a solicitor when I wanted one at any reasonable hour"—I think it was immediately after that, that changing the tone of my voice and my manner, I said, "Mr. Palmer, if I should call in a solicitor to give me advice, I suppose you will have no objection to answer him any questions he may choose to put to you"—I I altered my tone purposely—I had purposely mentioned the post mortem.

Q. Did the alteration of your tone and manner appear to you to produce any impression upon him? A. I looked steadily at him, the moon was shining, I cannot say that I could see his face distinctly, but he said, with a spasmodic affection of the throat, which was perfectly evident to me, "Oh, no, certainly not"—I had purposely mentioned my desire to have the body opened—I when we were talking on the subject of the solicitor, something was said about taking a solicitor to Hednesford—I ought to say, that when I men tioned the post mortem there was not the slightest change in Mr. Palmer's manner; he was perfectly calm and collected, and as usual—after this con versation there was a pause for three or four minutes—he then again pro posed to come over to me after he had had his coffee, to tell me about the solicitors, and I again begged that he would not trouble himself—in the course of the evening he came over to see me—that was after he had been home, and after I had been some time absent from the inn, seeking for Mr. Gardner—I went to Mr. Gardner's house that night, but did not find him at home—Palmer said, "It is a very unpleasant affair for me about these bills"—I said, "I think it right I should tell you, Mr. Palmer, that since I saw you I have heard rather a different account of Mr. Cook's affairs"—he said, "Oh! indeed; well, I hope it will be settled pleasantly, at all events;" or, "at any rate"—I said, "It will only be settled, sir, in the Court of Chancery;" or, "His affairs can only be settled there"—I do not recollect the precise words—I think he said again, "Oh, indeed!" in a lower tone—I think he then, after a short pause, asked me what friends Mr. Cook had to visit in the neighbourhood of London; this conversation, I think, passed at that time; what friends he had to visit in the neighbourhood of London, or what friends he visited—I said, "Several"—"Oh, but I mean," he said, "who does he stay with when he goes there?"—from the questions he put to me, he wished to know who had told me—I am not quite sure whether that same evening he did not speak about going to Hednesford—the next day, Sunday, I saw him again in the evening—I think between 5 and 6 o'clock, about 6—he came into the coffee room; my dinner was preparing, and was writing a letter—nobody was present—I am not sure whether it was on that night or the night before that he spoke about my going to Hednes ford—this was what was said upon the subject, we were talking of going to Hednesford, Saunders, the trainer, lived there—and he said, "If I were you, I would not take a solicitor with me there"—I said, "Why not, Mr. Palmer?"—he said, "I should recommend you not;" or, "advise you not," I do not know which—I said, "Sir, I shall use my own judgment about that"—he said, "Oh, of course you will"—I said, "Of course I shall"—on the Sunday we had had some conversation on the subject of the post mortem exami nation;

not at this same interview—I am not sure whether it was not after the evening service—I think it was later in the evening, I am not quite sore; I know it was Sunday evening—he came into the room; I was sitting writing, and he approached me with a piece of paper in his hand as if he would give it me—I did not take it from him, I did not take any notice of him, I went on with my writing, and said, "Pray, Mr. Palmer, who is Mr. Smith of this place?"—I did not mention the Christian name—he said, "Smith, Smith, Smith," two or three times in that way, as if he did not know such a person—I said, "A Mr. Smith who sat up with my son one night, who slept in the room or sat up with my son"—he said, "Oh! he is a soli citor in this town"—I said, "I ask you the question, sir, because as the betting book is missing, I should wish to know who was with the young man"—I first said, "Is he a solicitor in practice here?" and he said, "Yes"—after a short pause, I said, "Pray, Mr. Palmer, did you attend my poor son in a medical capacity?"—he said, "Oh, dear, no?"—I said, "I ask you that question because I am determined to have his body examined, and if you had attended him medically I suppose the gentlemen I shall call in would think it proper that you should be present"—I think the next thing he said was, "Can you tell me who is to perform the examination?" or words to that effect—I said, "I cannot, I shall not know myself until the morning; but I think it right to tell you of it; I shall have it done for my satisfaction, and whether you are present or not is a matter of indifference to me, if the gentlemen employed think it right you should attend"—"So it is to me," he said—he again asked who the medical gentlemen were to be who were to perform the post mortem examination; and I said, "I do not know, I can not tell myself."

Q. On the Friday, when you twice saw the body, when you say Mr. Palmer, without your authority, gave the orders for the shell and coffin, did you perceive any manifestation of decomposition in the body, or anything which called for its being speedily put into a shell? A. On the contrary, the body did not quite look to me like a dead body; I was surprised at the appearance of it.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You were on affectionate terms, you say, with your step-son? A. Yes—the last time that he staid at my house for a length of time was about a month, in Jan. and Feb. last year—he then stayed about a month—he had then a slight sore throat—do not remember that it was continuously sore; it did not attract my notice every day—he did not complain of it from time to time during the whole of his visit—it did not make it difficult for him to swallow occa sionally, not in the least; there was nothing in it that attracted my notice—I never noticed any ulcers about his face at that time—I saw him three or four times in the course of the summer, and I think twice or thrice in the month of Oct.—he did not appear to me on those occasions to be at all more delicate than usual, he always looked pale—on the occasion that I saw him previously to that 5th Nov., he had not looked like an invalid—he had complained of being an invalid in the previous winter, and he said, if he was not better the next winter, his medical friend had told him he had better go to a warmer climate; it was that occasioned me to say, "You do not look like an invalid"—his brother and sister were rather delicate than otherwise, not very strong; his brother was more delicate in appearance than in reality—his father died, I think, at the age of thirty or thirty-one—he ruptured a blood vessel—Cook never referred to me on the occasion of a wish to insure his life—I do not know that he ever proposed to insure his life—I never heard of it—I do not know Dr. Todd—when the betting book was

lost, I was very much dissatisfied about it—I did not complain to the people in the house—I went to the door of the sitting room, at right angles with the door of the bar, and called to the housekeeper—I did not inquire of her, I desired that everything belonging to him might be locked up—I did not go to Mr. Gardner as soon as I got to Rugeley; that was when I returned to Rugeley—I went that evening to seek for Mr. Gardner—he was not at home—I saw Mr. Gardner on the following morning, the Sunday morning.

Q. Have you ever been in communication with a person of the name of Field? A. Once—he is a police officer—I should think that was about a fortnight or three weeks after my son was buried—Field called on me, what for I do not know—I do not know what he wanted—I never applied to Field.

COURT . Q. What was the name of the gentleman who went down with you, that married the sister of Cook? A. Bradford—it was Bradford that dined with me—I called on Mr. Bamford—I have not mentioned him, I was not asked any question—Mr. Jones told me, without mentioning his name, in London, that a medical gentleman had been called in—I called upon him to thank him for his kindness, and to ask what I was indebted to him—Mr. Bamford did not dine with me.

MARY KEELING . I am a widow, living at Rugeley. I was fetched on Wednesday morning, 21st Nov., to lay out Mr. Cook's body—Mrs. Stringall went with me—we got to the Talbot Arms about I o'clock in the morning, and found the body still warm, but the hands and arms were cold—it was lying on the back, straight down the bed—the arms were straight across his chest—I observed nothing very particular about the body—his head lay a little on one side, and his right foot was turned on one side—the body was very stiff indeed—I have laid out many corpses, and have never seen one so stiff before—we had a difficulty in straightening the arms—he could not keep his arras straight down to his body—I drawed a piece of tape under his back, and tied it round both his wrists—bis right foot turned on the outside—we were obliged to take a piece of tape and tie both feet together—the eyes were open—we were a considerable time before we could close them, as his eyelids were very stiff—the hands were very stiff and were closed—Mr. Palmer came up stairs—he lighted me while I took two rings off Mr. Cook's fingers—they were on the fingers of one hand—I had a difficulty in getting the hand open to get the rings off, the fingers were so very stiff—I got them off, and the hand then closed again—I did not, while there, see a book like a betting book or a small pocket book, or any book at all.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. Is it not a usual thing to use tape to put bodies straight after death? A. Not to tie the arms together—I never use tape at all—I have used it in tying the ankles together, to keep them together, but not the body, and I have used it for the toes on other occa sions—I have never seen it used for the arms when they are not in a proper position, or when they have not been laid out early after death—I have not seen it used for the arms—it is usual for whoever is present to lay the arms by the side immediately a person dies—if the body gets stiff, the arms remain in the position in which they were laid down at the time of the death—there is great difficulty frequently in closing the eyes, but there is not a difficulty in keeping them closed, if closed as soon as they are gone—it is a common thing to put penny pieces on the eyes after death to keep them closed—that is because, if not so kept down, the eyelids would draw back, and would be difficult again to close—the jaw is also tied shortly after death.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. How many dead bodies have you laid out in your time? A. I cannot exactly recollect, but many children in my time, and a great many of all ages—I never knew of the arms being tied before—it is usual to lay them straight by the side of the body immediately after death—by immediately, I mean in a few minutes after they are gone—it was half past 12 o'clock when they called me up, and it was half past 1 o'clock when I went up stairs—when I hare had occasion to tie the ankles, it is because sometimes the feet are apt to give way outside—I have had to tie the feet about half an hour after death when the corpse is laid out—it was in consequence of the eyelids being so stiff that we could not close the eyes—I have not known that to be the case with other corpses—when I have had occasion to place penny pieces on the eyelids, in order to keep them down, the eyelids have been stiff—I have myself put penny pieces on, I cannot say exactly when; several years ago—in that case the lids were not quite so stiff as these.

DR. JOHN THOMAS HARLAND . I am a physician, residing at Stafford. On 26th Nov. I went from Stafford to Rugeley, to make a post mortem examination of Mr. Cook—I arrived about 10 o'clock in the morning, and called at the house of Mr. Bamford, a medical practitioner there—as I went there, Palmer came from the back of his own house, and joined me in the street—I had frequently seen him, and I had spoken to him before—on his joining me, he said, "I am glad that you are come to make a post mortem examination; some one might have been sent that I did not know, and I know you"—I said, "What is this case? I hear there is a suspicion of poisoning"—he said, "Oh, no, I think not; he had an epileptic fit on Monday and Tuesday night, and you will find old disease in the heart and in the head"—we then went together into Mr. Bamford's house—I had been requested to go from Stafford to be present at the post mortem , and I had brought no instruments with me—Palmer said that he had instruments, and offered to lend them to me—he also said that there was a very queer old man, who seemed to suspect him, of something, and that he did not know what he would he at, or what he wanted—he also said, "He seems to suspect that I have got the betting, book, but Cook had no betting book that would be of use to any one"—Mr. Bamford and I then went to Mr. Frere's—we walked together—Mr. Frere is a surgeon, in Rugeley—Mr. Frere told me something there, but Palmer was not present—from there we proceeded to the Talbot Arms, and the post mortem examination was proceeded with—Mr. Devonshire operated, and Mr. Newton assisted him—Mr. Bamford, Mr. Palmer, and several other persons, were in the room—I stood near Mr. Devonshire, who operated, to observe what was going on—the body was very stiff, much more than dead bodies are five or six days after death—the muscles were very highly deve loped; by which I mean, strongly contracted, and thrown out—I supposed that there had been strong spasmodic action in the body before death—I examined the hands—they were firmly clenched—the abdominal viscera were first examined.

COURT . Q. Is there any report of any medical man who assisted in the examination? A. Yes, I made a written report—I have not got it with me; I have sent it to Mr. Stevens.

MR. BODKIN . Q. Are these ( produced ) the notes you made at the time? A. Yes, I swear that it is a true account of what I saw—( Beading: "Post mortem examination of John Parsons Cook, Esq., Rugeley, Nov. 26th, 1855.—The body is moderately muscular; the back and most depending parts of the body are discoloured from blood having gravitated there. Pupils of the eyes neither contracted nor dilated. No serum in the peritoneal cavity; the

peritoneum slightly injected; no adhesions—stomach as now exposed is rather distended, and the course of some of its vessels is seen beneath the peritoneal coat. The stomach, on being removed, contained some ounces of a brown fluid—the large curvature resting on the spleen was of dark colour. The internal mucous membrane of the stomach was without ulceration or excoriation. On the inferior surface of the cardiac extremity were minute yellowish-white specks, of the size of mustard seeds. The small intestines contained some bilious fluid in the duodenum; they were altogether small and contracted, but presented no other remarkable appearance. The large intestines contained some fluid feculent matter. The spleen and pancreas seemed to be healthy. The right kidney was rather large, soft, and its whole texture full of blood; there were no granulations, nor coagulable lymph. The left kidney was of less size, but its appearance was the same as the right, in less degree. Between the base of the tongue and epiglottis were numerous enlarged follicles like warts. The œsophagus and epiglottis were natural. The larynx was stained with dark blood, which had pene trated through all its tissues. The lungs contained much fluid blood in their posterior parts, which would be accounted for by gravitation. The lungs everywhere contained air. The pleura were healthy, the heart was of natural size, and in every part healthy. In the aorta, immediately behind the valves, were some yellow-greyish-white patches like soft cartilage. The heart presented no remarkable appearance. The skull was of natu ral thickness. The dura mater had its arteries injected with blood. There was no excess of serum, nor adhesions. The pia mater and arach-noid, as well as the brain, appeared altogether healthy; all the blood was fluid and uncoagulated. Signed, J. T. Harland, M. D.")—That is the whole of the report—the abdominal viscera were the first parts that were examined—I found them in a perfectly healthy state—they were taken out of the body—we examined the liver, that was healthy—the lungs were healthy, there was much blood in them, there was slight emphysema—I do not think there was more blood than could be accounted for by gravitation—I noticed some appearances at the end of the stomach—I also examined the head; the brain was quite healthy, there was no extravasation of blood on the brain, and no serum—there was nothing in the appearance of the brain which, in my judgment, would cause pressure—the heart was con tracted, and contained no blood; that did not appear to be the result of disease, but of action; I should attribute it to spasmodic action—the stomach was taken out, and at the lower end of it there were numerous small yellow-ish white specks about the size of mustard seeds—those appearances, in my judgment, would not at all account for death—I do not know whether they would have any effect upon the health—I think they may have been mucous follicles, nothing more—I am doubtful whether they would damage the health at all—I examined the kidneys—they were full of blood, which had gravitated there since death; there was no appearance of disease—the blood was in a fluid state; that is not usual; we find it so in some cases of sudden death, but such cases are rare—to find the blood in a fluid state is a rare occurrence, even in cases of sudden death—I did not observe about the whole body any disease or appearance of disease which could account for death—I discovered no appearance of organic disease—the lower part of the spinal cord was not minutely examined on that occasion—I examined the upper part, it presented a perfectly natural appearance—on a subsequent day it was thought right to exhume the body, in order to examine the spinal cord—that was done on, I think, 25th Jan.—Dr. Monckton made a report in writing of that second examination, it was made jointly—the

whole of the spinal cord was then minutely examined—this ( produced ) is the report—it is a true statement of what I observed—( Reading : "Report of an examination of the spinal cord of the exhumed body of John Parsons Cook, Esq., on Friday, Jan. 25th, 1856. We, the undersigned, were shown the corpse which, to the certain knowledge of one of us, namely, Mr. Bam ford, was that of the late John Parsons Cook, Esq., who died at Rugeley, Staffordshire, Nov. 20th, 1855, and were requested by the officers of the Crown to institute an examination into the condition of the spinal cord. The body was enclosed in both a shell and a coffin, and was found lying on its back The cranium, thorax, and abdomen had been opened at a previous examina tion, and decomposition had proceeded rapidly in these parts in consequence of the admission of air. There was much rigidity of some of the muscles of the body, considerable force being required to flex the legs or to alter the position of the different limbs. The thumbs and fingers were partially but firmly flexed; the toes as firmly extended, and the inner edge of each foot drawn up by the tibiales antici et postici , as in talipes," (that is a species of club foot,) "the postici slightly predominating, so as to point the toes downwards. The muscles of the neck and trunk were relaxed. We observed much lividity of the integuments of the dorsal surface of the body, putrefaction having softened and discoloured them. A longitudinal incision having been made along the course of, and down to, the spines of the vertebra, from occiput to sacrum, the muscles were reflected on either side from off the vertebral laminæ, these muscles presenting no other evidence of putrefaction than some softening but slight sero-sangui neous infiltration. Sawing through the laminá, we removed the spinet of the vertebras, and so opened the spinal canal in its whole length. These portions of the posterior wall of the canal were successively and minutely examined, but no roughness, spicula, or other irregularity could be discovered The medulla spinalis now lay beneath our view, enclosed in its fibrous sheath, and surrounded on all sides by loose areolar tissue and fat, traversed in all directions by veins. This areolar tissue had not the colour ordinarily possessed by it in the recent state, but was of a livid hue, or of deep prune juice colour. This was, doubtless, owing to its being saturated, as a sponge would be, with the sanguineo-serous fluid which occupied the canal to a considerable extent, having gravitated to this dependent part of the body subsequent to its death. The chest having been raised on a large block, so as to give a proper curve to the dorsal portion of the spine, this fluid had mainly gravitated to the lumbar region; but the areolar tissue, lining the walls of the vertebral canal, was throughout its whole length infiltrated, saturated, and stained with this bloody serum. We now divided the dura mater, or medullary sheath, longitudinally, in its whole length, reflecting it off the cord on either side, a very small quantity of sanguinolent serum had gravitated within the sheath to the lumbar region, where it was lying staining the canal equina. The arachnoid was glistening and perfectly transparent The medulla oblongata had been separated from the medulla spinalis on a level with the atlas, and the medulla spinalis, as it lay in situ , presented a most healthy appearance, smooth, glistening, and of a greyish-white colour; presenting, in fact, no departure from its usual normal character and condition. The post roots of the spinal nerves were regular in their origin and course, and when traced to their points of emergence from the canal exhibit no abnormal appearance whatsoever; they had a some what darker grey colour than had the cord itself. The cord was next raised from its sheath, and its nerves being one by one divided, it was removed

from the canal, its anterior surface and the anterior roots of the spinal nerves being now scrutinized, they appeared in every way as healthy and free from disease as did the posterior. Stains or discolorations of the cords or nerves were readily removed by the effusion of water. There was no appearance of fulness of the veins of the spinal cord, or its members; the upper part of the cord, being more exposed by the previous opening of the skull, was softened by decomposition, but, upon examination, neither it nor any other part of the spinal cord showed any signs of disease. The proper envelope of the cord contained the nervous matter in a pulpy state, being softened by decomposition. After the removal of the cord, its fibrous sheath and osseous canal were carefully examined by the eye and finger cast along its whole length, and this proved the absence of all unnatural appearance or condition, roughness, irregularity, fracture, dislocation, exostosis, or spicula of bone, except at a point opposite the third and fourth cervical vertebrá where both the eye and the finger detected a slightly granular roughness of the arachnoid surface of the dura mater. Upon closer examination this slight roughness was found to depend upon the presence beneath the arach-noid of some twenty or thirty minute irregularly shaped granules, of some hard material barely raising the surface in a perceptible degree, they were found scattered over a space of less than an inch square. No more could be found elsewhere, each granule was gritty and hard under the point of the scalpel, and under the microscope had an appearance rather of calcareous than of osseous matter. The dura mater of the brain was next carefully examined, but nothing abnormal was found; no spiculae nor granules such as described above were detected. We believe that these granules could have no connection whatsoever with the death of deceased. Deduction: The only conclusion, therefore, at which we could arrive after this examination was a negative one. That there was nothing in the condition of the spinal cord or its en velopes to account for death; nothing but the most normal and healthy state, allowance being made for the lapse of time since the death of deceased. J. T. Harland, M. D., William Bam ford, apothecary, D. Henry Monckton, M. D.")—I am still of opinion that there was nothing in the appearances I have just described to account for the death of the deceased—there was nothing of an unusual kind that could not be referred to changes that took place after death—when the stomach and intestines at the first examination were removed from the body, they were separately emptied into a jar—Mr. Devonshire and Mr. Newton were the only two who operated—the prisoner at that particular period was standing at the right of Mr. Newton, and I observed that while Mr. Devonshire was open ing the stomach, a push was given by Palmer which pushed Mr. Newton on to Mr. Devonshire, and which shook a portion of the contents of the stomach into the body, upon which I said, "Do not do that"—I thought a joke was passing among them, and I said, "Do not do that," to the whole of them—nothing was said on that observation of mine by either of them.

COURT . Q. Did you see who gave the push? A. Palmer was close to him—there was no one outside Palmer to impel him—Mr. Newton and Mr. Devonshire were pushed together, and Palmer was over them at the same time and was smiling.

MR. BODKIN . Q. After this interruption did the opening of the stomach proceed? A. Yes; it contained two or three ounces of brownish liquid—there was nothing particular in that—Palmer himself stated, in the hearing of the persons there, that there was nothing particular found in it—he was looking on, and said to Mr. Bamford, "They will not hang us yet"—I

first heard that said in aloud whisper—that was not after anybody had said anything, it was his mere observation upon it—the stomach was emptied into the jar, and the stomach was put into the jar also, with the brownish liquid found in it—the intestines were then examined; nothing particular was found in them, they were contracted, and were very small—the viscera were placed in the jar with their contents as they were taken from the body—the jar was then tied over with two bladders, and sealed—I tied them, and sealed them, and after I had done so, placed the jar on the table by the body—Palmer was at that time moving about the room—in a I few minutes I missed the jar from where I had placed it—during that time my attention had been called to the examination—I called out, "Where is the jar?" and Palmer, from the other end of the room said, "It is here; I thought it would be more convenient for you to take away"—there was a door at that end of the room, and Palmer was within a very short distance of it, a yard or two, and a distance from where the body was, of about half across this Court, the shorter way—this plan ( produced ) accurately represents the room of which I am speaking; there is a scale of feet below—by this scale I should say that it was about twenty four feet from the place where the body was to the place where Palmer was—( The witness marked the two places in pencil )—the door near which Palmer was, was not the door by which we entered—I do not know where it opened to, but I see it here—I called to him to bring the jar—I said, "Will you bring it here?—I also went to the other aide of the table, and met him nearly half way he was coming with it—it was not then in the same state in which I had placed it on the table; there was a cut through both the bladders, it was hardly an inch long—that had been done with some sharp instrument—I examined the cut to see whether any of the contents of the jar had passed through it; it was quite clean—I said aloud, so as to be heard by all the people, "Here is a cut, who has done this?"—Palmer, and Mr. Devonshire, and Mr. Newton all said that they had not done it, and nothing more was said about it—when I was about to remove the jar from the room, the prisoner asked me what I was going to do with it—I said thai I should take it to Mr. Frere's—he said, "I had rather that you would take it with you to Stafford than take it there"—I do not remember that I made him any answer—I then took it to Mr. Frere's house, and after doing so returned to the Talbot Arms—I left the jar in Mr. Frere's hall, tied and sealed in the way I have mentioned—with respect to the slit, I immediately cut the string, replaced the bladders, and tied them separately again, so that the slit was beyond the lips of the jar—that was immediately on getting the jar again from Palmer—I re-sealed it—I did not see it again before I left Rugeley that day—the prisoner's house is immediately opposite to the Talbot Arms—I saw him again when I got there—I went into the yard to order my carriage, and while waiting for it, he came across and asked me what I had done with the jar—I told him that I had left it at Mr. Frere's—he inquired what it would be done with—I said that it would go either to Birmingham or London that night for examination—I do not recollect that he made any observation upon that—after the slit had been discovered, I unfastened the jar, and repacked it—I tied each cover with a separate string, and sealed it with my own seal—I believe there were no friends of the prisoner present on his behalf during the post mortem examination; there were several Rugeley persons present—there were persons there on the second examina tion on the part of Palmer.

Cross-examined by MR. SEBJEANT SHEE . Q. Were you on terms of inti-macy

with Palmer, or merely an acquaintance? A. Merely an acquaintance, occasionally practising at Rugeley, and known as a physician in practice in that neighbourhood—in the course of the examination, Palmer said, "They won't hang us yet"—he addressed Mr. Bamford when he said that at first—he might have said, "Doctor, they won't hang us yet"—at first he addressed Mr. Bamford in a loud whisper, and afterwards he repeated the same expression to several persons—I had said to him that I had heard there was a suspicion of poisoning—I drew up a report of the first post mortem examination—they were merely pencil notes that I wrote at the time the post mortem was going on—those are not the notes that Dr. Taylor has had in his possession—those I wrote as soon as I got home, from my pencil notes, and then I destroyed the others—I do not know how those notes got into Dr. Taylor's possession—I sent them to Mr. Stevens the same night—I have not seen them since—I did not see them before the Coroner—Dr. Monckton took the second report with him—I do not know to whom he sent it—on the first examination I observed follicles on the tongue, not under the tongue, on the dorsal of the tongue—they were not pustules; they were enlarged mucous follicles, I should say, not containing matter—it is a thickening of the mucus at the base of the tongue—they appeared to be of long standing—there were many of them.

Q. Did they indicate that there had been much soreness there? A. I have no doubt they would produce inconvenience—I doubt whether they I would have given pain in the ordinary use of the mouth in eating and speaking—they are not in the nature of enlarged glands from the irritation of disease—I do not believe they were enlarged by the irritation of disease—I have seen them frequently—I have said that the lungs were healthy—I adhere to that.

Q. Did not Mr. Devonshire, in your presence, express a contrary opinion, and say that they were unhealthy? A. He said there was emphysema, and he thought there was congestion of the lungs—emphysema is not a natural state—it is a very constant state in persons who are supposed to be in health to the slight extent that he had it—they are not supposed to be in health until they die—it is a diseased state of the lungs—it consists in a distension of the air cells—it is an abnormal state of the lungs—the lungs were full of blood—the heart was empty—I examined the white spots on the wider part of the stomach—I examined them by removing the mucus that was on the surface of the stomach with the finger or scalpel—I had no lens, no glass—I should have examined them with a lens had I had one—my exa mination of those appearances was satisfactory to me without a lens—I reported that the brain was healthy.

Q. What sort of examination did you make of the brain? A. The brain was carefully taken out, and was sliced—we first of all examined the ex ternal part, and then slices were taken off from the apex at the base of the brain—they were thin slices, I should think a quarter of an inch thick—I think that that was sufficiently thin to show any disease, if there was any—if there had been any appearance of disease we should have examined the part more carefully, but there was no appearance of anything unhealthy—we examined the spinal cord as far as we possibly could on the first post mortem examination—I requested Mr. Devonshire to cut the spinal cord as far down as he could, so that we might examine, and I said if there was any appearance of disease we must then open the canal.

COURT . Q. Did you find any appearance of disease? A. We found no appearance of disease.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. How far down did you examine it? A. Down to about the distance of the first vertebrae.

Q. Supposing you had discovered softening of the spinal cord on that occasion, after a full examination of the spinal cord, might not that have been in your judgment sufficient to account for the death of Mr. Cook? A. No, certainly not—softening would not produce tetanus at all—it might produce paralysis—it was afterwards thought desirable to make a careful examination of the spinal cord—I do not think, in order to ascertain with any degree of certainty the cause of death, it was necessary carefully to examine the spinal cord shortly after death—I do not know who suggested that it should be examined more than a month after death—the first exami nation was on 26th Dec., and the second on 25th Jan.—if there had been a softening, it would have been detected at the second examination—the body remaining unexamined for a long time would not produce hardening of the spine—the spine was very little soft indeed—there were some appearances of decomposition upon it—I do not think that would materially interfere with my examination for the purpose of ascertaining what the condition of it had been at death—I do not know that it is necessary, in the examination of the spinal cord, even shortly after death, to use a microscope in order to discover if there had been any lesion of the parts—I examined the granules on the spinal cord carefully at the time, with my finger and with my eyes, not with any microscope—I examined the throat—I examined to see if there was any disease upon him of a venereal kind—there was a loss of substance of a portion of the glans penis.

COURT . Q. There was something upon him of some past disease? A. Of some past disease.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE , Q. Did you form any opinion of how long past? A. It was cicatrized over, and upon the cicatrix there was a small abrasion—the excoriation might be a little sore—it was not extensive, very small—it wat a mere excoriation, merely a little of the cicatrix rubbed off.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Was there any chancre? A. There was no chancre, nothing but what I should term an excoriation, except the old cicatrix of the old disease—chancre, in it's most positive and active state, would not occasion tetanus—I never heard or read of such a case—there were no symptoms of ulcerated throat; no appearance whatever of anything syphilitic there—I never heard or read of an ulcerated or syphilitic throat producing tetanus and death—follicles on the tongue often result from disor dered stomach—they are of no serious consequence to health—they would not in any way account for death in this form—emphysema is an undue quantity of air in the air vessels—that could not have any connection with this death—Mr. Devonshire made some observation about there being con gestion in the lungs—that appeared to me not to be a state of disease, but to be due to the gravitation of blood after death—there was nothing in the lungs which could account for death—the heart was empty, but in other respects healthy—I ascribe the emptiness of the heart to spasmodic action—when the heart is emptied of it's contents life cannot go on—that must necessarily be something immediately concomitant with death—I heard Mr. Jones examined yesterday—I believe that the spasm that was in the muscles generally also extended to the heart—there was no other cause to which I could trace the emptiness of the heart, except the spasmodic action described yesterday by Mr. Jones—the fluidity of the blood is rare even in a case of sudden death.

Q. Did you ever hear or know of fluidity of the blood in any other case

than that of sudden death? A. I have read that in cases of poisoning the blood is sometimes fluid, in cases of poisoning by arsenic and strychnine—the white spots on the stomach were quite visible to the naked eye—I had no difficulty in ascertaining what they were, and their extent—there was nothing whatever in the brain to indicate the presence of any disease of any sort; if there had been, I never knew or read of any diseased state of the brain occasioning death by tetanus—there was nothing in the state of the spinal cord at all to account for the symptoms attending the death—death had not produced any amount of relaxation there—in my opinion, if I had examined the state of the spinal cord immediately, or recently after death, I should not have been able to make a better examination of it than I was when I did examine it—there is no disease with which I am acquainted which would produce tetanus and that form of death—sometimes in inflam mation of the membranes of the spine there is tetanus—there was no appear ance of inflammation whatever here.

Q. To what do you ascribe the granules that you found there? A. It is not unfrequent, on the dura mater particularly, for there to be small granules which are called Pacchionian glands—I should consider these were something of the same nature—it is doubtful whether that is a diseased con dition or not; they are never found in young persons, they are almost always found after adult age—I believe hardly any one is exempt from them—I never saw a head without them.

CHARLES JAMES DEVONSHIRE . I am an undergraduate of medicine, of the University of London. In Nov. last, I was at Dr. Monckton's, at Rugeley—I was attending to his practice—I performed the pott mortem examination on 26th Nov., at the Talbot Arms—the body was pale, there was a general pallor—the fingers were clenched, the thumb of the left hand was drawn into the palm, and the fingers were clenched over it—the mouth was a little contracted, twisted, the body was very stiff, perfectly so.

COURT . Q. Was it stiff beyond the usual stiffness of death? A. Yes; much more.

MR. HUDDLESTON . Q. I believe you opened the body? A. Yes—the liver was very healthy—I examined the heart—it seemed healthy, it was perfectly empty, no particle of blood—it was of the natural size—I noticed the lungs—they contained a considerable quantity of dark fluid blood, and there were traces of emphysema on the left lung, and the lining membrane was reddened—the blood was perfectly fluid throughout the body—I exa mined the brain, I found it healthy throughout—I examined the medulla oblongata, and a small portion of the spinal cord, about a quarter or half an inch, as far as I could reach with a knife—it was perfectly sound and healthy—I took out the stomach; I opened it with a pair of scissors—I had a jar there—as I was opening the stomach there was a pressure, or push from behind, and I went a little forward, but I did not pay any attention to it—I was carried a little forward by it.

Q. What was the effect of that; did anything happen to the contents of the stomach? A. I cannot say if any escaped—I punctured the anterior surface of the stomach, and some of the contents fell out, about a spoonful went into the jar, I think—the contents were put into a jar, and it was sealed by Dr. Harland—I tied up the stomach where I had punctured it, before I put it into the jar—the stomach and intestines were to all appearance quite healthy—I went to Mr. Frere's that same day for the jar—I found the jar there in the same state as I had seen it made up by Dr. Harland—I gave that jar to Mr. Boycott, Messrs. Lander and Gardner's clerk—that was on

Monday, 26th—on the 29th I opened the body again—that waft to get the liver, kidneys, and spleen—I took them oat of the body, and some blood from the vena cava —I put them in a stone jar, then put bladder, wash leather, and brown paper, and then sealed it—I delivered the same jar in the same state on the 30th to Boycott, the same person to whom I had deli vered the former—in making the post mortem , examination, I examined the penis—I saw nothing at all there—it was matter of observation between Mr. Palmer and I—Palmer said that we should find syphilis on him, that he had had syphilitic sore throat; it was in consequence of that I looked at the penis—I saw no chancre, or anything of the sort, and there was no hardness—I also took out the throat—I do not know that it was in conse quence of that—there were some enlarged papillae, natural papillae, but larger than usual, at the base of the tongue; one tonsil was shrunk, caustic had perhaps been applied some time previously, not anything recent.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. Tetanic convulsions are supposed to proceed from the spine being disordered, are they not? A. Yes, they are—derangement of the spine is considered the proximate cause in complaints that affect the spinal cord—that derangement is not always capable of being detected—in examining the body of a person who was supposed to have died from tetanus, the spine would be the first organ looked at, you would look at the spinal cord of course—about half an inch of the spinal cord, exterior to the aperture in the cranium, was examined on the first post mortem —the length of the spinal cord depends upon the height of the man—I was not present when the granules were discovered on a subsequent examination—where you discover granules pressing on the spinal cord within the dum mater, they would be considered sufficient to account for death, if they pro duced great irritation and pressure.

COURT . Q. Have you seen any case of that sort? A. No, I have not.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Have you been in practice any time? A. very short time—at the time I was making this post mortem examination, I was not certain that he had died of tetanus, there were reports thrown out that it was, but that was all—I had no knowledge of the precise circum stances attending the death.

DR. DAVID HENRY MONCKTON . I am a physician residing at Rugeley. I was not present at the first post mortem examination—on 25th Jan. I made an examination of the spinal cord of the deceased man—the muscles of the trunk and neck were in a state of laxity, which I should consider due to the commencing decay of the body—that would certainly not be inconsistent with the fact of there having been great rigidity of those muscles at the time of death—I found the muscles of the arms and legs in a state of rigidity—I cannot say that it was an unnatural amount of rigidity—I think the rigidity was not more than I should consider would be found in an ordinary dead body, considering the time, but the position was peculiar; the muscles of the arms had partially flexed the fingers, the fingers were between flexion and extension—that partial clenching of the hand was very firm, it required considerable force to relax or alter the position—the feet were turned inwards much more than is usual—I care fully examined the spinal cord—I wrote the report which has been read by Dr. Harland—the condition in which that part of the body then was, was such as to enable me to make a satisfactory examination of it—if there had been, prior to death, any diseased or abnormal condition in that part of the body, I should, I think, have had no difficulty in detecting it—I am speak ing of the part of the body to which I confined my examination, the spinal

cord and marrow—there was no disease—it is difficult to give the origin of the granules which were detected; I agree with the last witness that they are frequently to be found after a certain period of life—I never heard or knew of sudden disease or death being produced from that cause—the report which has been read fully contains my opinion.

Cross-exatnined by MR. SERJENT SHEE . Q. What did you do with the report? A. On 2nd Feb. I gave it into the hands of Mr. Gardner, the attorney of Mr. Stevens—I have not seen it since till to day.

JOHN BOYCOTT . I am clerk to Messrs. Lander, Gardner, and Lander, of Rugeley. On 26th Nov. I received a jar from Mr. Devonshire, covered with brown paper, and sealed up—I took it to London, and on the next day delivered it, in the same condition, to Dr. Alfred Taylor, at Guy's Hospital—afterwards, on 30th Nov., I received another jar from Mr. Devonshire at Dr. Monckton's house—I brought that up to London also, and delivered it, in the same condition, to Dr. Taylor—I was not present at the inquest on the body of Cook—I did not fetch Newton to be examined at the inquest—when I was on my way to London on Tuesday last, Newton came to me at the Rugeley station, and made a communication to me—he did not ask to see Mr. Gardner, he knew Mr. Gardner was out—when I got to London I took him to Mr. Gardner, and heard him make a com munication to him—he made the communication to me as Mr. Gardner's clerk.

JAMES MYATT . In Nov. last I was postboy at the Talbot Arms, at Rugeley—I know Palmer—on Monday night, 26th Nov., I was ordered to take Mr. Stevens to the Stafford station—I got the order at a little after 5 o'clock, and before I started I went home to get my tea, and on returning, to the Talbot Arms met the prisoner—he asked me if I was going to drive them to Stafford, Mr. Stevens—I told him I was, and he asked me if I would upset them he said that he supposed that I was going to take the jars; I told him I believed I was—he said, "Do you think you could upset them?"—I told him, No"—he said, that if I could, there was a 10 l . note for me—I told him I could not—I do not recollect whether he said anything more about the jar—I told him I must go, for the horse was in the fly waiting for me to start—I told him, "If I do not go, there is some oe else will go;" he told me not to be in a hurry, for if any one else went, he would pay me—I do not recollect that he said more to me that evening—I saw next morning, when I was going to my breakfast, and he asked me who went with the fly; I told him Mr. Stevens, and I believed one of Mr. Gardner's clerks—he said that he believed it was—I do not recollect anything more.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You say that he asked you whether you were going to drive them to Stafford; what conversation was there between you and him before he used the words, "going to drive them to Stafford"? A. I had not spoken to him before—I knew that. I was going to take some one to Stafford the words, I believe, were, "going to drive them to Stafford"—Mr. Stevens's name was mentioned, but I do not recollect whether that was before he asked me if I was going to drive them to Stafford—I knew that he meant Mr. Stevens, because he mentioned Mr. Stevens afterwards—he did not mention Mr. Stevens at first, but in the course of that conversation—it was about 300 or 400 yards from the Talbot Arms—I did not prepare the fly, it was prepared while I went to my tea—there might be other gentlemen at the Talbot Arms at the time, visitors, besides Mr. Stevens and his party—I understood the word "them" to mean Mr. Stevens and his party—I do not recollect that the words that

Palmer used ware, "I would not mind giving 10 l . to break Stevens's neck," or words to that effect—"10 l . to upset him," those were the words, to the best of my recollection—I cannot say whether he appeared to have been drinking at the time.

Q. When he said, "to upset him," did he use any epithet, or say, "upset the fellow"? A. He did not describe him in any way—he said that it was a humbugging concern, or something to that effect—I do not recollect his saying anything to the effect that he was a suspicious, troublesome fellow—I cannot say that he spoke in an angry tone of him—he gave me no notion, from what he said, for what reason he had to complain of him—he did not say that he had been very troublesome and suspicious.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. My learned Mend has put the words in a somewhat different form; let me have the words over again: what was it Palmer said to you when he saw you in the street? A. He asked me if I was going to drive them to Stafford, I told him I believed I was—he asked if it was Mr. Stevens I was going to take, and I said that I believed it was—he said that he supposed I was going to take the jars; I told him I was—he asked me if I would upset them—I told Mm I could not—he said that if I would there was a 10 l . note for me—it was about the middle of the conversation that he said that it was a humbugging concern—I cannot remember whether it was before or after he had offered me the 10 l . note I that was all that I recollect at that time.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Do you not know that there was only one jar in the fly? A. I do not.

SAMUEL CHESHIRE . ( a prisoner ). I was for some years postmaster at Rugeley—I am now in Newgate, suffering punishment for having read a letter as postmaster—I was tried at Stafford—I confessed to reading it—I was postmaster at Rugeley upwards of eight years; it would have been nine years on 5th April in the present year—I know the prisoner very well, we were schoolfellows together—I think I have been to races with him about three times in my life, three or four times, but I never betted—I never made but one bet in my life—I was very intimate with him—I went to Shrewsbury races with him in Nov., 1855, and returned to Rugeley with him the same evening, about 20 minutes past 8 o'clock—it was on Tuesday, the day that Polestar won, the day the handicap was won—on Saturday, the 17th, I went with the prisoner to see Mr. Cook at the Talbot Arms—he was in bed—I lived at the post office, which is about 300 on 400 yards from Palmer's house—on Tuesday evening, 20th Nov., I received a message from Palmer to go to him—it was, I should think, somewhere between 6 and 7 o'clock—I was to take a stamp with me—in consequence of that I went to Palmer's house, and took a receipt stamp with me—I called at Mr. James's, the bookseller's, on my way, and purchased a shilling's worth—when I got to Palmer's, I found him in his sitting room—I waited a short time, and he said that he wanted me to write a letter—he produced a copy from which I was to write—I copied it—he said that it was money which Mr. Cook owed him—what I wrote was left in Mr. Palmer's pos session—before I commenced writing he said that Mr. Cook was too ill, and he said, "Mr. Weatherby will know my writing"—he said that he was going to take it over for Mr. Cook to sign—after I had written it I left it with Palmer.

CHARLES WEATHERBY . I am secretary to the Jockey Club, that is one of my appointments—my establishment is in Burlington-street—I keep a sort of banking account with gentlemen who have race horses, and receive and pay stakes for them—I knew the deceased, he had an account of that

kind with us —I know the prisoner slightly—he had not an account with us, that is to say, he had no account of that nature, no general account; I had dealings with him—the other is a species of banking account—on 21st Nov. I received a cheque or order for 300 l .—it came by post—it purported to be signed by Mr. Cook—I sent that back two days after, on Friday, the 23rd, to the prisoner at Rugeley, by post—I did not pat it in myself; I generally place my letters for the post in a box, a list of them is kept, and one of the clerks sees that they are posted—that letter was taken away to be posted in the ordinary course of business—the amount of the order was 350 l .

JOHN BOYCOTT . re-examined. I served a copy of these two notices to produce, one on the prisoner, and the other on Mr. Smith, his attorney, on 3rd May; I gave one to Mr. Smith, and the other to Mr. Palmer personally—the prisoner was then at Stafford gaol—( This was an order to produce a cheque for 350 l . purporting to be written by Cheshire, and to be signed J. Parsons Cook )—it was not produced.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . to CHARLES WEATHERBY . Q. Do you know the writing of John Parsons Cook? A. Yes—as far as I know, it was in his writing.

SAMUEL CHESHIRE . re-examined. What I wrote from the copy which Palmer gave me was addressed to Messrs. Weatherby—I really cannot exactly call to mind the words, but it was something to the effect of "Please pay to Mr. William Palmer the sum of 300 l .;"I cannot recollect what amount it was, I believe it was 300 l . and odd, "and place it to my account"—I cannot recollect whether I put any date to it, I quite forget—I left that with him, and went away—this was Tuesday—I saw Palmer again on Thursday or Friday—he sent again for me, I cannot call to mind which day it was—I remember hearing of the death of Mr. Cook at the Talbot Arms—it was after that—it was in the evening, some time between 6 and 7 o'clock, for I know the business that I was doing just at the time—when I went to him he was in his kitchen; he went out of the kitchen, and came back to me with a quarto sheet of paper in his hand, he gave me a pen, and asked me to sign it; there was something written on it—I asked him what it was, and he said, "You know that Cook and I have had deal ings together, and this is a document which he gave me some days ago, and I want you to witness it"—I said, "What is it about?"—he said, "Some business that I have joined him in, and which was all for Mr. Cook's benefit," and that that was a document stating so, or something of that kind—I just cast my eye over the paper—it was a quarto post paper, of a yellow descrip tion—I observed the writing, I thought it was Mr. Palmer's own writing—I told him when he asked me, that I could not sign it, and that I should have to be called on perhaps to give evidence in the matter at some future day; that I had not seen Mr. Cook sign it, and I likewise told him that the Post-office authorities would not like me to be called off to give evidence, inasmuch as I should have to trouble them to put some one in my place while I was absent—I do not believe I said anything with regard to Cook's death on that Friday night; in fact, I did not give my exact reasons for not signing it—when I refused, Palmer said that it would not matter my signing it, and perhaps they would not object to Mr. Cook's signature—I gave the paper back to him, left it with him, and went away—( The notice to produce this paper was here ready but the paper was not produced )—I believe there was a stamp on the paper—I did not read it all, I just cast my eye down it—it was to the effect that certain bills, the dates and amounts of which were quoted, and which I cannot recollect now, were all for Mr. Cook's benefit,

and not for Mr. Palmer's; those any not be exactly the words—they were rather large amounts, I recollect two, one was for 1,000 l . and one 500 l .—there was a signature at the foot, either I or J. P. Cook, I cannot say which—I do not think it was "Parsons Cook"—I knew Palmer very well, and was in the habit of giving him letters addressed to his mother, who resided at Rugeley—he was in the habit of calling for them—I cannot recollect that I gave him any letters addressed to his mother daring the months of Oct. and Nov., 1855—I do not know whether I gave him any addressed to Mr. Cook—Mr. Palmer has taken Mr. Cook's letters, and Mr. Cook has taken Mr. Palmer's—I remember the inquest being held on Mr. Cook—I saw Palmer while it was going on; he came down to me on the Sunday evening, and asked me if I saw or heard anything fresh to let him know—(that was the Sunday previous to 5th Dee., to which day the inquest was adjourned)—I thought it was a temptation for me to open a letter—I told him I could not open a letter.

Q. How came you to say that? A. I could not sea what other informa tion he required—he told me that he did not want me to do anything to injure myself—I believe that was about all the eomvewatlon that passed at that time—he did mot done again to me—the letter which I reao width I am suffering punishment for, was a letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner, the solicitor—I did not read the letter to the prisoner, or give him the letter to read—I only told aim a few words of its contents—I did not read it all myself—I read part, and told Palmer as much as I remembered of it at the time—it was on the morning of 5th Dec.—I think I can tell Palmer's hand writing—I believe this letter to his ( produced )—I told Palmer that there were no traces of stry chnis found.

COURT . Q. You told him that you found that in Dr. Taylor's letter? A. Yes, that no traces of strychnia were to be found.

MR. JAMES . Q. What else, as well as you remember? A. I cannot recol lect what else I told him of the letter—upon that he said he knew these would not, for he was perfectly inconent.

CAPTAIN JOHN HAINBS HATTON . I am chief constable of Stafford shire. Mr. Ward, the Ceroper, handed me this letter, and I endorsed it—I made my minute at the time—read: addressed, "W. W. Ward, Eaq., soli citor, Stafford." ( without date ) "My dear Sir, I am sorry to tell you that I am still confined to my bed. I do not think it was mentioned at the inquest yesterday that Cook was taken ill on Sunday and Monday night in the same way as he was on the Tuesday night when ke died. The chamber maid at the Crown Hotel, Mastere's, can prove this; I also believe that a man by the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some money at Shrewsbury. New here he could only pay Smith 10 l . out of 41 l . he owned him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this? And, again, whatever Professor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote from Lonon last Tuesday night to Gardner to say, 'We and Dr Rees have this day finished our analysis, and find no traces of either strychnia, prussic acid, or opium.' What can beat this from a man like Taylor, if he says what he has already said, and Dr. Harland's evidence? Mind you, I know and saw it in black and white what Taylor said to Gardner; but this is strictly private and con-fidential, but it is true. As regards his betting book, I know nothing of it, and it is of no good to any one. I hope the verdict to morrow will be that ke died of natural causes, and thus emd it fiver yours. W. P."—Mr. Ward was the Coroner at the inquest.

SAMUEL CHESHIRE . Cross-examined by , MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You

knew Cook well? A. I knew him from the commencement of Sept I think—that was the time I became intimate with him—I did not know his handwriting—I had seen it, but I could not tell, if I were to see it now, whether it was his or not—I was not sufficiently acquainted with his writ-ing to be able to state my belief respecting it—I never saw him write—I had seen letters addressed to him—I could not speak to his handwriting—when I declined to sign the paper which Palmer asked me to sign, he said, "Oh! never mind; I have no doubt they will not object to Mr. Cook's signature"—he came to me and he asked whether I had seen or heard anything.

Q. Was it "seen anything;" or, was not it, "Have you heard anything?" A. "Seen or heard"—I am sure that he said, "Seen or heard"—I told him that I had seen something—he said then, "What have you seen?"—I told him, and I believe he then said, "I knew they would not, for I am as inno-cent as a baby"—I believe that was the phrase which he used—I remember, on the Saturday before the death of Cook, being told by Palmer that he was very ill—I dined with him and Mr. Smith that day—Cook was expected; he said that he should have been one of the party—Palmer said that Cook was very ill, and that he must call in Bamford—I saw Cook in the evening, he was in bed—I suppose he was ill, he vomited while I was there—that was on Saturday.

Q. Did you see Palmer at Rugeley on the Wednesday, the second day of the Shrewsbury races? A. Yes; I did—it was about midday, I think.

MR. JAMES . Q. How long does it take to go by the train from Stafford to Shrewsbury? A. I cannot say, the trains run so very badly—it is more than an hour—if the trains ran so as to meet each other, I should say it would take an hour and a half—when you once start the duration of the journey from Stafford to Shrewsbury is a little upwards of an hour.

ELLIS CRISP . I am an inspector of police as Rugeley. On 17th Dec. I assisted in searching the prisoner's house—there was a sale of his things on 5th Jan.—I got this book ( produced ) at that sale—I did not buy it—I saw it being sold, and took it away from the sale.

Gross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Where did you find the book? A. It was being sold—it was put up by the auctioneer—it was not put away or concealed in any manner—it was brought out with a lot of other books for sale—there were other medical books.

JOHN BOYCOTT . re-examined. I believe the handwriting in this book to be Mr. Palmer's, and also in this other book—( The following pottage, written in pencil, on a fly leaf, at the commencement of the book, was read : "Strychnia kills by causing tetanic fixing of the respiratory muscles.")

DANIEL SCULLY BERGUM . I am chief superintendent of the rural district police. I searched the prisoner's house—this book with a green cover was found in his house—the search was commenced on Sunday, the 16th, and continued on 17th Dec.—I cannot state the exact place in which I found that book—I found it either on 16th or 17th—it was found amongst his other books—( The following passage was read from this book : "Nux vomica; seeds of strychnine, like an orange; a certain quantity of seed con tains thirty-four grains of strychnia; one grain will give a bitter taste to 80lbs. of water; one grain of strychnia is equal to six grains of bruchia; it kills by producing tetanic contractions in the respiratory muscles.")

JULIET ELIZABETH HAWKES . I keep a boarding house, at No. 7, Beaufort-buildings, Strand. I know the prisoner—he was at my house on 1st Dec. last—he asked my porter to buy something for him—I did not hear him—on

19th Nov. I had some conversation with him myself—on 1st Dec. I purchased some game, a turkey and a brace of pheasants, for him; and the porter purchased some fish—I packed it up in a hamper—I did not speak to Mr. Palmer about it—I had no conversation with him about it on that day—I did not at any time have any conversation with Mr. Palmer about the things that I put in the hamper—I put up the things by the order of Mr. Palmer to our porter, Frederick Slack—I did not hear him speak to the porter—Slack is at my house now—I directed the hamper—the porter gave me the direction, and he took it to the station—I desired him to do so—I have not been paid for those things—Mr. Palmer came up on that day, 1st Dec.—I have not seen Mr. Palmer since—the hamper was directed to "W. W. Ward, Efcq., Burton-on-Trent," or "Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire."

GEORGE HERRING . I live at No. 3, Albert-terrace, New-cross; I am independent. I knew the deceased, Cook, for about two years prior to his death—I met him at the Shrewsbury races last Nov.—I saw him there on the day of the races—I put up at the Raven—I should think he appeared to be in his usual health—the latest on which I saw him on Wednesday was between 6 and 7 o'clock—I had a private room along with Fisher, and Mr. Reed and Mr. Thomas Jones—that room was next to the private room occupied by Cook and Palmer, divided by a partition—I saw Cook on the Thursday morn ing—he had no money in his possession at that time that I know of—I did not see him with money on that day—I saw him with money on the Wednesday at Shrewsbury—they were Bank of England notes and country notes.

COURT . Q. How came you to see them? A. They were placed in twos and threes, crumpled up—he was straightening them on a table, and on his knee.

MR. WELSBY . Q. Were you able to appertain at all the amount? A. No, not at all—there were a considerable number of notes—he showed me his betting book at Shrewsbury—it contained entries of bets made at the Shrewsbury races—( MR. SERJEANT SHEE . objected to ike content of the betting book being referred to. MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . submitted that it was suffi ciently traced to the probable possession of the prisoner. The COURT . was of opinion that the contents could not be entered into )—on Monday, 19th Nov., I received a letter from Palmer—this is it—( read : "18th Nov., 1855.

Dear Sir,—I shall feel much obliged if you will give me a call at 7, Beaufort-buildings, Strand, to-morrow, Monday, about half past 2; and I am, dear Sir, yours truly, William Palmer.")—I received that on the Monday, and I called that day at Beaufort-buildings, at half past 2 o'clock exactly—I found Palmer there—he asked me what I would take—I declined to take anything—I asked him how Mr. Cook was—he said he was all right; a physician had given him a dose of calomel, and advised him not to come out to-day, it being a damp, or wet day, I do not know which term he used—he said, "What I want to see you about is settling his account"—while he was speaking he took out half a sheet of note paper, and he was holding it in his hand at the time he finished the sentence—he said, "This is it"—I rose to take it—he said, "You had better take it down; this will be a check against you," at the same time pointing to some paper that was lying on the table, on some blotting paper—I wrote on that paper from his dictation—I have the paper here which I so wrote ( producing it )—he said, "Receive of Ingham, 350 l .; Bain, 300 l .; Green, 140 l .; Morris, 200 l .; Nelson, 30 l ."—then he asked me how much I made that—I said, "1,020 l ."—he said, "Pay yourself 6 l ., and Shelly 30 l .; and if you see Bell, tell him that Mr. Cook will come up either Thursday or Friday, and settle with him himself;

how much does that make it?"—I deducted the 36 l . from the 1,020 l ., and sold, "984 l ."—he said, "That is what Cook makes it; if I give you 16 l . it will make up 1,000 l .; out of that pay yourself 200 l ., and that will pay fur my bill"—I stopped reading there, and said, "Your bill; I know no difference between your bills"—he said, "Pay Padwick 350 l . and Pratt 450 l ., making 1,000 l ."—there are two addresess on the paper—one he wrote himself, "H. Padwick, Esq., 2, Hill-street, Berkeley-square"—the other I wrote myself, "T. Pratt, 5, Queen-street, Mayfair"—I wrote it at his dictation—that was where I had to send the sum of money to, as I stated I did not know their addresses—he then said, "You had better fill up 4 cheque to Padwick and Pratt, and send them at once—I told him that I had only one blank cheque in my pocket—he said, "You can easily fill ont I up on a half sheet of paper," or "on a piece of paper"—I refuted to do so, as I had not received the money—he said it would be all right as Cook would not deceive him—he wished me particularly to pay Mr. Pratt the 450 l .—his words, as nearly as I can remember, were, "You must pay Pratt the 450 l . as it is for a bill, or joint bill of sale cm the mare"—he told me he was going round to see both Mr. Pratt and Padwick, and tell them that I would send it on—I had remarked that if he would tell me his address, I would call after leaving Tattersall's, and leave the amount of money with them, and he said, "You had better send a cheque"—he then asked what there was between us—I said, "45 l ."—he said, "But you owed me 40 l . on the Liverpool meeting"—I said I would settle that with Mr. Sargent, or I was to settle it with Mr. Sargent—he said, "But you hare not settled it yet, as I have done that with him, therefore if I give you 5 l . that will be right"—at the same time he took out of his pocket a 50 l . Bank of England note—he required 29 l . out of the 50 l . note—I was not able to give him change—he said if I would give him a cheque that would be the same thing—I gave him a cheque for 20 l . and nine sovereigns—I believe I bad two other 50 l . notes in my pockety I do not know the number or date of the 50 l . note he gave me—as I was going away he pressed me to send the cheques to Pratt and Padwick immediately—he said if I sent them immediately it would be before the closing of the bank, or before bank time, or some remark of that description—he said, "When you have settled this account, write down word to either me or Cook"—that was the first instruction he gave me, to send to him or Cook; I was then going out of the room, and I turned round and said, "I shall certainly write to Mr. Cook"—I said that because I thought I was settling Mr. Cook's account—he said, "It don't much matter which"—I I said, "If I address Mr. Cook, Palmer, Bugeley, Stafford, that will be correct, will it not?"—he said, "Yen"—after leaving Beaufort-buildings I went to Tattersall's—I there received all the money on Cook's account, except 110 l ., of Mr. Morris, who paid me only 90 l . instead of 200 l .—I sent from Tattersall's a cheque for 450 l . to Pratt—I posted a letter to Cool from Tattersaill's, addressed as I have mentioned—on the next day, Tuesday, the 20th, I received a telegraphic message—I have not got it here, I gave it to Captain Hatton, on the Coroner's Inquest, at Kugeley—in consequence of receiving that message I wrote again on that day to Mr. Cook—I addressed that letter as before, I believe that letter was not posted till the Wednesday—I have here some bills of exchange ( producing them )—I know I Palmer's handwriting—I have never seen him write, the only letter I ever received from him was the one handed in—I know Cook's handwriting—I believe the signature to two of these bills and the acceptance to the third to be in Cook's handwriting, but I am no judge of handwriting—I have

seem him write—I believe that to be his handwriting—I got these bills from Mr. Fisher—I gave him cash for them.

JOHN BOYCOTT . re-examined. The signature of William Palmer to one of these bills, and the acceptance to the other two, is in Palmer's handwriting—( these were three bills each for 200 l ., dated Rugdey Sept. 15 th , 1855, payable to the of far of the drawer, one at one month, and the others at two months ).

GEORGE HERRING . ( continued ). When the one month bill beoame due, Cook paid me 100 l . in part discharge of it, within tint week I do not know the day—he afterwards paid me the remaining 100 l .; that was on the first bill—I cannot tell on what daj of the week Or month it was, it was either on the Wednesday evening or Thursday morning at Shrewsbury races—I suppose one of those was the 200 l . which Palmer mentioned that I was to pay out of the 1,020 l .—I deducted that amount out of the money that I received—there were three of 200 l . each originally—Cook had paid me one, and there were two of 200 l . each remaining, and Mr. Palmer told me to de duct one of them out of the sum that I received on account of Mr. Cook—I do not still hold the other, and claim on it—I did not pay Mr. Padwick the 350 l . that he told me—I produce another bill for 500 l .

THOMAS SMERDON STRWARIDON . I am manager of the bank at Rage ley. I know the prisoner's handwriting—I believe the signature to this bill to be in his handwriting, both the drawing and endorsement—it purports to be accepted by Sarah Palmer, the prisoner's mother—I know her handwriting—( MR. SERJEANT SHEE . objected to the reception of this evidence as irrelevant. The COURT . was of opinion that it was admissible )—I have seen Mrs. Sarah Palmer write—she had an account at our bank—I have paid cheques purporting to be drawn by her—I should say that the accept ance to this bill was certainly not her handwriting—( This was a bill for 500 l ., dated 6 th Oct. , 1854, at three months, drawn by the prisoner, and accepted and endorsed by Sarah Palmer and William Palmer ,)

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Is this the handwriting of Cook? A. I never saw Cook write.

GEORGE HERRING . ( continued ). This bill is also endorsed by Cook—I am sure it is Cook's handwriting—it "J. Parsons Cook," the name "Parsons" is written at full length—I do not know for certain in what way Cook used to sign his name—I had this 500 l . bill from Mr. Fisher—I paid for it 200 l ., to Mr. Palmer, and 275 l ., to Mr. Fisher; the 25 l . was for discount—it was not paid at maturity—I have taken proceedings against the prisoner upon it within the last month.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. You used the expression, when, he said, "Pay yourself 200 l . for my bill," "I know no difference between yours and his"? A. I knew no difference—that was alluding to the bills—I do not know, of my own personal knowledge, whether they had any joint transactions in racing—I used that expression, "I know no difference between yours and his," because I received the bills all at once, I knew no difference between them—I mean that both their names were on all the bills—I was at Shrewsbury with Palmer on the Wednesday—I know of several persons being ill there that day.

Q. What was the nature of the attack? A. I can speak of it for myself, it was a kind of diarrhoea—I had not vomiting, sickness, nor had others that I know of—I put up at the Haven Inn—I took my meals there, and my companions also—they were not ill, no one that stopped in the house, but one gentleman came there and dined with us one day, and he was

taken unwell—I arrived at the Raven on the Monday night, and left on the Friday morning, I believe—I dined there every day—I dined there on the Tuesday—Mr. Palmer did not dine with me on that day, or any other day—I saw Cook on the racecourse several times—the ground was very wet and damp—I remonstrated with Cook on the Thursday morning about his standing on the damp ground—that was after he had been taken ill on the Wednesday night—the last I saw of Palmer on the Monday in London was at a quarter past 3 o'clock, when I left—I was with him about three-quarters of an hour.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Were any of your party at the Raven ill betides yourself? A. None of our party—I know nothing myself of Mr. Cook's illness.

FREDERICK SLACK . I am porter at Mrs. Hawkes's boarding house, Beau fort-buildings—I remember Palmer being there on 1st Dec.—he wished me to get a basket of game ready for him, and he gave me the direction to put upon it, "Mr. William Ward, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire"—he told me to get the game where I pleased, and some cod fish, and a barrel of oysters, a brace of pheasants, and one turkey—he did not wish the gentleman to know where they came from —he gave me the direction in the coffee room—I saw him write it—I gave the message to my mistress, Mrs. Hawkes—she got the turkey and pheasants, and I got the fish and oysters—I got the hamper, and put the things all in, sewed the hamper up, and took it to the railway, directed as I had been ordered.

Adjourned.

Saturday, May 17 th.

GEORGE BATES . I was brought up a farmer, I am not in business at all now. I know the prisoner William Palmer—I have known him eight or nine years—in Sept, Oct., and Nov. of last year, I used to see that his lad did his duty by his breeding stock of horses—I used to look after his stock, to see that the boy who had the care of his horses did his duty—I had no stated salary; I used to receive money occasionally—I really cannot say what I had per week; some weeks I used to receive two sovereigns, and some one—I lodged in Rugeley—I paid 6 s . 6 d . per week for my lodging—I am not a married man—I knew John Parsons Cook, the deceased—I have no doubt I saw him in Sept. last at the prisoner's house—I could not fix the date; but I am certain I had seen him there in Sept.—I dined with him I believe in the month of Sept., at Mr. Palmer's; I have occasionally gone to dine at Mr. Palmer's.

COURT . Q. Then you sat at table with him? A. Of course.

MR. JAMES . Q. Do you remember either during dinner or after dinner anything being said about an insurance to be proposed on your life? A. After dinner I do, it was in Mr. Palmer and Mr. Cook's presence—what was said about it, and who began the conversation I cannot say; it was either Mr. Cook or Mr. Palmer, but which I cannot say—( MR. SERJEANT SHEE . submitted, that this evidence was irrelevant to the present inquiry. The AT-TORNEY-GENERAL . offered it as affording one amongst other motives for that which was charged to the prisoner, and also as showing the position in which he was placed at that time pecuniarily; it being an insurance fraudulently effected for the purpose of raising money upon it. The COURT . was of opinion, that it was too remote to be admissible )—I remember the death of Mr. Cook at the Talbot Arms, and the inquest being held—I know William Webb Ward, the Coroner—I saw the prisoner on the evening of 8th Dec., while

the inquest was being held—I believe the prisoner gave me a letter—this is the letter ( looking at it )—he told me to go to Stafford and give it to Mr. Ward—this was between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning—at the time gave me that letter, he gave me a letter directed to a man of the name he Frantz, a dealer in game, in Stafford—he told me there would be a packag of game from Frantz, I was to direct it to Mr. Ward and send it to him—he said nothing more than that I should have the game from Frantz, and I was to send it to Mr. Ward—I got a basket of game from Frantz, upon the order that the prisoner had given me—I directed it to "Webb Ward, Esq., Core ner, Stafford," and sent it to him—I will not take my oath whether it was "coroner" or "solicitor, Stafford"—I directed it from what Palmer told me; that I should have some game, and that it was to be sent to him—I gave a man 3 d . to take it—I went afterwards to the Dolphin Inn, at Stafford—I believe I delivered this letter to Mr. Ward himself—I found him at the Dolphin, in Stafford, in the smoking room—I told him I wanted to speak to him, and he followed me out into the yard or passage, and I gave it to him there—there were other people there in the room where he was—I had no directions from the prisoner as to how I was to deliver the letter to him—I saw the prisoner again when I went back to Rugeley that night—I told him what I had done—I told him I had delivered the letters I took to Stafford that day, and that I had sent the game—on Thursday, 10th Dec., I was sent for to the prisoner's house early in the morning—I think it was about 12 o'clock, about mid day—I found him in bed—he wanted me to go Stafford to take Webb Ward a letter, and to take care no one saw me give it—on the Saturday he had said something to me about getting some money, and I went to a man and took him some money from a man in Staf ford—before I set out the day I took the letter, he said, "Go to Ben and tell him I want a 5 l . note"—I took Benio be Mr. Thirlby, his assistant, Ben jamin Thirlby—he said, "Tell him I want a 5 l . note, that I have no small change"—I believe then he asked me to look in a drawer in the dressing glass that stood on the table, and he said, "Tell me the amount of that bill, George;" I looked in, and there was a 50 l . Bank of England bill—I left it there—this was before he gave me the letter to take to Mr. Ward—I then went to Thirlby's house for the 5 l . note—I got a 5 l . note on a local bank, which, I believe, was Bridgenorth—I took it to Mr. Palmer's, and I went down stairs—I left Palmer in his room, the writing things were on the bottom of his bed—he was still sitting up in bed—I remained down stairs about half an hour—I remained in the yard or the kitchen—when I went up again Palmer asked me what was the amount of the bill which was in the drawer; I just looked at the drawer, and there was the same bill which I believe I had left there; then he gave me the letter to go to Stafford—I could not swear whether it was sealed or wafered—I delivered that letter between the railway station and an inn called the Grand Junction—I followed Mr. Ward through the room in the station, and gave it to him on the flags—I believe he crumpled it in his hand and put it in his pocket—he did not read it in my presence, he did not open it in my presence—I told Mr. Ward from whom I had brought it—I believe I went back to Rugeley after having done this—I saw the prisoner again that evening—I told htm I had given Mr. Ward the letter—I do not think he made any answer to me.

Cross-examined by MR. SBBJBAMT SHEE . Q. You can tell me, I dare say, what was the establishment of horses belonging to Mr. Palmer, at Rugeley; how many mares in foal had he to begin with? A. I think there were four brood mares, and four yearlings, and a three year old mare—I could not pre tend to tell the value of the stock myself—I have heard that one of them sold

for 800 guineas—I cannot say whether any of them were in foal shortly before, or at the beginning of the month of Nov.—I should suppose there were some in foal—the stables were at some short distance from his house, at the back of it—the stables were at the paddock—I should think he had twenty one or twenty-two acres of ground there—the fences were live, growing hawthorn.

Q. Do you remember, shortly before the month of Nov., or in the early part of Nov., a mare called the Duchess of Kent, slipping her foal? A. I remember the Duchess of Kent being there; we supposed she had slipped her foal, but we nerer could find it—there was a mare called Goldfinder's Dam—she had not slipped her foal, that I am aware of.

Q. Had any complaint been made about dogs going about the paddock)? A. I think I once said to Harry, "The turf seems a good deal cut up here; how is it I"—Harry is the groom—I saw the turf cut up, which I supposed to be with horses' feet, which they could not cut up without they had galloped—I attributed it to the mares galloping about—I never saw any dogs run them—I have seen a gun at the paddock—I cannot say it belonged to Mr. Paliser—I never saw it used—I never had it in my hands to examine it; I saw it in the place where the com was kept—Harry's surname is Hockey, I think—I do not know inspector Field by sight—I saw a person who came to me, who they told me was inspector Field, after he went away—I cannot take upon myself to say when he came; it was the latter end of Sept. or the beginning of Oct., or may be NOV .—he did not tell me he was inspector Field—I cannot tell whether he saw Palmer—I will not say whether it was Sept., Oct., or Nov. that I first saw that person, he was a stranger to we—I did not see him more than once at Rugeley—I do not know Fiald—when I went down stairs about this 5 l . note, I saw a man named Gillard in the yard—I believe he is a sheriff's officer—I cannot say whether he saw Palmer that day.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. You saw Gillard oa the day you took the letter to Mr. Ward? A. Yes—when I saw the turf cut up from horses having been running about there, I should say id must have been shortly after hay harvest—I should ftink it was the latter end of Sept.; but I could not say to a mouth which way it was—I remember the time of Mr. Cook's death—how long it was before that I really cannot charge my mind.

THOMAS BLIZZARD CURLING . I am a Fellow of the College of Surgeons, and surgeon to the London Hospital. I have turned my attention parti cularly to the subject of tetanus—I have published a work on that subject—tetanus signifies spasmodic affection of the voluntary muscles of the body—of the disease, there are two sorts only, idiopathic and traumatic—there are other diseases in which we see tetanic contraction, but we should not term them tetanus—idiopathic tetanus is a primary disease, it is tetanus originating, as it were, as a primary disease, without any wound apparently self-generated—the traumatic proceeds from a wound.

Q. From what causes, as for as you are aware, does idiopathic tetanus arise? A. From exposure to damp and cold; from the irritation of worms in the alimentary canal—it is not a frequent disease in this country, a very rare one—where it does arise, it does not usually end fatally—I am not able to say what proportion the cases which end fatally bear to the general number of cases which arise, for I have never seen a case of idiopathic tetanus—I have been surgeon to the London Hospital twenty two years—in all that time I have never seen a case of idiopathic tetanus—cases of traumatic tetanus are much wore frequent—I speak quite within compass when I say I have seon fifty cases; I believe 100 would be nearer the mark.

Q. Will you tell us how the symptoms of traumatic tetanus first manifest themselves, and describe how the disease goes on to it's climax? A. The disease first manifests itself by a stiffness about the jaws and the back of the neck—rigidity of the muscles of the abdomen usually sets in early—a dragging pain at the pit of the stomach is almost a constant symptom from spasm of the diaphragm, and in many instances in acute oases the muscles of the back are extensively affected; then the spasms, though continuous, are liable to aggravation and come on in occasional paroxysms—as the disease goes on, these paroxysms become more frequent and more severe—when they occur, the body is drawn backwards—in some instances, though less fre quently, it is bent forwards—then, in an acute case, a difficulty in swallow ing is a very common symptom—a difficulty in breathing also during the paroxysm, a choking sensation—the disease may end, supposing it to be fatal, in two ways: the patient may die somewhat suddenly of suffocation, owing to closure of the opening of the windpipe, or glottis; or the patient may be worn out by the severe and painful spasms, and the muscles may relax, and the patient gradually sink and die—traumatic tetanus is generally fatal—the locking of the jaw is an almost constant symptom in tetanus from wounds.

COURT . Q. Then lockjaw is a common symptom of traumatic tetanus? A. Yes.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Is it an invariable symptom? A. Almost constant—may say constant, in a greater or less degree; it is not always strongly marked, but generally so—it is an early symptom—have omitted another symptom which is important, a peculiar expression of the counte nance, very characteristic of the disease—it shows itself generally throughout the countenance.

COURT . Q. Is this peculiar to traumatic or idiopathio tetanus? A. I be lieve not—my observations are taken from traumatic cases.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. What is the appearance? can you describe it? A. There is a contracted condition of the eyelids, a raising of the angle of the mouth, a contraction of the brow—in traumatic tetanus the lower extremities are sometimes affected, and sometimes, but somewhat rarely, the upper; the muscles affected are chiefly those of the trunk—when the muscles of the extremities are affected the period of the disease at which that occurs varies; sometimes, when the wound is in the lower extremities, the muscles of the extremities may be affected early—if you have a wound on either the arm or the legs, they are affected generally at an advanced period—I never knew or read of traumatic tetanus being produced from sore throat or from chancre—know of no instance of any syphilitic sore leading to tetanus—think it is a very unlikely case.

Q. How long, ordinarily speaking, does a case of traumatic tetanus, which ends fatally, take before death ensues? A. It varies very much, from twenty four hours to three or four days, or longer—the shortest period which ever came to my knowledge in which the disease ran it's course and ended fatally, was eight or ten hours; the time could not be precisely ascertained—the disease, when once commenced, is continuous—never knew or heard of a case in which a man would be attacked one day, and then have twenty four hour's entire respite, and be attacked again the next—as far as my experience goes, such a thing could not be—should think it was not tetanus—heard the account given by Mr. Jones, the surgeon, of the death of the deceased man Cook—the symptoms there were not consistent with any form of traumatic tetanus which has ever come under my knowledge or observation.

Q. What distinguished them from the cases of traumatic tetanus which

you have described? A. There was the sudden onset of the fatal symptoms—in all cases that have fallen under my notice the disease has been preceded by the milder symptoms of tetanus, gradually progressing to their complete development and termination and death—I heard also the description whicih was given by the woman Mills of what he went through on the Monday night—in my judgment, those were not symptoms of tetanus, there was the ab sence of a continuity of symptoms between those two attacks—I am speak ing of tetanus generally—I am not alluding to traumatic tetanus especially.

COURT . Q. You are asked if, according to the symptoms described by Elizabeth Mills, you think the patient was suffering from tetanus? A. I have said no—I mean not from the tetanus of disease.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Assuming tetanus to be synonymous with convulsive or spasmodic action of the muscles, was there in that sense tetanus on Monday night? A. No doubt there was spasmodic action of that muscles, but there was not what I should call either idiopathic or traumatic tetanus on the Monday night—I say that because of the sudden onset of the spasms and their rapid subsidence—they are not, in my opinion, con sistent with the true form of tetanus—there is a form of tetanus also called hysteric tetanus—that is rather hysteria combined with spasms, or tetanic symptoms—that does not end fatally; I do not know an instance of it—do not know an instance of that disease in a male, possibly there may be—I I know that certain poisons produce tetanus; nuz vomica, through its two poisons, the strychnia and the brucia—they are poisons of a cognate charac ter, only the brucia is much milder than strychnia—they both come from the nux vomica—I have never seen a case of human or animal life destroyed by strychnia—St. Ignatius's bean, I believe, is said to produce that effect—I do not know of it.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You have stated that your experience is confined to traumatic tetanus; have you known that descrip tion of tetanus arise from any disease of the spinal cord? A. Spasms I have known arise from disease of the spinal cord—the irritation of any of it's afferent nerves might be likely to produce tetanus—afferent means nerva proceeding to the spinal cord.

Q. You have stated your opinion that almost constantly traumatic tetanus commences by lock jaw with greater or less violence or intensity; do you agree with this opinion of Dr. Watson, in his "Lectures on the Principles and Practice of Phsic," that "in four cases, perhaps, out of five, the disease begins with trismus or lock jaw?" A. I think I do.

Q. With reference to the causes which may produce all the symptoms of tetanic convulsions, do you agree with Dr. Watson that it may arise from causes as slight as these, the sticking of a fish bone in the fauces, a slight wound of the ear by a musket shot, the mere stroke by a whip lash under the eye, though the skin be not broken, from the cutting of a corn, from a bite on the finger by a tame sparrow, from the blow of a stone on the neck or hand, from the insertion of a seton, from the extraction of a tooth, from the operation of cupping, and simple things of that character? A. I do; except, perhaps, from the concussion of the ear by the musket ball: I should, perhaps, question that one—I know of no well authenticated instance of traumatic tetanus occurring as shortly as a quarter of an hour after a slight injury.

Q. You told my friend you wrote a treatise on tetanus, which I see obtained the Jacksonian prize for the year 1834; did you inquire into the following case before you gave it as an instance: "Another rapidly fatal case is mentioned by the late Professor Robertson, of Edinburgh; a negro

having scratched his thumb with a piece of broken china, was seized with tetanus, and in a quarter of an hour after the injury he was dead? A. I did refer to the authority as far as I could, but I did not find any reference to it except in the Encyclopædia; and when I wrote that book I was a young man of twenty-two years of age—I think I am of maturer judgment and greater experience now—idiopathic tetanus would not be 90 likely to bring a patient to the hospital as a sudden wound leading to traumatic teta-nus—idiopathic tetanus would possibly have come more likely in the first instance under the notice of a physician than a surgeon.

COURT . Q. Have you known any case of idiopathic tetanus in this country? A. Yes, I have heard and read of such oases.

MR. SERJEANT SHRE . Q. Do not you know that very lately there was a case in the London Hospital in which tetanus came on so rapidly, or rather so unaccountably, that it was referred to strychnia, and it was thought necessary to examine the stomach of the patient to see whether strychnia, existed? A. I knew that before the history of the case was investigated—I have heard that the body being examined, no strychnia was found.

Q. And do you not also know, on a full examination of the body, symp toms of old syphilitic ulcers on the arms were discovered? A. I do know that sores were discovered.

COURT . Q. Bid you superintend that case yourself? A. No, I did not—it was not my patient—I did not personally see the patient—he was only in the hospital half an hour.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Do you know who did? A. The house sur geons, who are now in Court—I do not think it is very likely that the irri-tation of a syphilitic sore by wet, cold, drink, mercury, or mental excitement, would lead to tetanic symptoms—I think the irritation likely to lead to anything of that kind may be produced from friction, as in the case in the hospital to which you alluded, but syphilitic sores are not much exposed to friction, in the throat, I mean—the irritation from a sore would fairly justify the case being termed traumatic—cases very rarely occur which it is difficult to class under the head of traumatic, as distinguished from idiopathic tetanus—I class the irritation of the intestines under idiopathic—epilepsy is not sometimes accompanied with tetanic contractions; by prolonged con tractions, continuous contractions, as contradistinguished from spasmodic—that is not the character of the spasms of epilepsy.

Q. Are not the contractions of epilepsy sometimes continuous, so that the hand will be twisted into various forms, and remain rigidly fixed in those forms? A. Not continuously; I think not for five or ten minutes together.

Q. As to convulsions generally, without reference to wounds, does it not frequently happen that convulsions attributable to no cause, the trace of which cannot be found in the body after death by any disease or lesion of any kind, are known to have occurred in the most violent and spastic way, and to have exhibited the appearance of tetanic convulsions? A. No instance of the kind has fallen under my observation.

Q. Do you agree in this opinion of Dr. Copland, who is an authority of considerable eminence, in his "Dictionary of Practical Medicine," under the head of "General Convulsions," "The character of the abnormal con traction of the muscles is in some cases of the most violent and spastic nature, frequently of some continuance, the relaxation being of brief dura tion, or scarcely observable, and in others nearly or altogether approaching to tetanic"? A. I should rather speak from my own observation—I have not observed anything of the kind.

Q. Is this definition of general convulsions correct in your opinion, "Violent and involuntary contractions of a part or of the whole body, some times with rigidity and tension, tonic convulsions, but more frequently with tumultuous agitation, consisting of alternating shocks, chloric convulsions, that come on suddenly either in recurring or distinct paroxysms, and in irregular and uncertain intervals"? A. It may be a correct definition; but one has to read over very carefully a statement of that kind before one would give wholly one's consent to it—I do not think it often happens that an adult patient dies of convulsions, spasmodic in the sense of their being tumultuous and alternating, and tonic in the sense of exhibiting a continuous rigidity, and yet after death no disease is found—I know of no instance—I do not know from my reading and science, as a writer on tetanus, and one who has attended to this description of complaint, that it is so.

Q. Is this true, I read it from your own book, "Tetanus is a functional disease of the nervous system, that is to say, a disease unaccompanied with any perceptible lesion of structure, the nature of which, although essentially distinct from inflammation, is completely unknown, and there are, there fore, no morbid changes peculiar to tetanus, and by which it can be recog nised"? A. If your previous question, as well as this, has reference to morbid appearances, I have no hesitation in saying persons do die of tetanus and other diseases without morbid appearances after death—in respect of general convulsions not so marked as to be properly classed as tetanic, I do not think that they sometimes happen suddenly without any premonitory symptoms, and sometimes are preceded by premonitory symptoms; but I have not really observed the case.

Q. I must ask you whether you agree in this, whether in convulsions not so marked as to be tetanic, they are not constantly preceded by nausea, retching, and vomiting, pain, and distension of the stomach, and left hypo chondrium, and flatulence of the stomach and bowels, and other dyspeptic symptoms? A. The class of cases you allude to do not come under my observation as a hospital surgeon—I think it is very likely that general convulsions are often accompanied with yelling and shrieking—I do not know that they frequently terminate in death, and that the proximate cause of that death is spasm of the respiratory muscles, inducing asphyxia—the Pacchionean glands are not in the spinal sheath; they are in one of the fissures of the brain.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. These general convulsions, about which my friend asked you some general questions, are they distinguishable from tetanus, properly so called? A. Yes—a medical practitioner, who saw a case of general convulsions, would be able at once, if a man of competent skill, to know the difference between such symptoms as those and of tetanus, which I have been talking of—there is generally loss of consciousness—one of the characteristic features of tetanus is that the consciousness is not affected.

DR, ROBERT BENTLEY TODD . I am a physician, and have been in prac tice twenty-five years. I am physician to King's College Hospital, and have been so about twenty years—I have also lectured on physiology and ana tomy, but do not now—I have directed my attention to the disease called tetanus, have lectured upon it, and have published my lectures; and also to the diseases of the nervous system generally—I agree entirely with the last witness in his distinction between idiopathic and traumatic tetanus—I have seen two cases of what seemed to me to be idiopathic tetanus, but it is a very rare thing in this country.

COURT . Q. How do you define idiopathic tetanus? A. define idiopa thic tetanus to be that form of tetanus which is produced without any external wound, and apparently from internal causes; from a constitu tional cause.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. You would not include in that, I pre sume, a case of tetanus resulting from poison? A. I think myself, that the term tetanus ought not to be applied to cases of poisoning for the symptoms are so essentially distinct from the disease—I should designate the symptoms tetanic in order to distinguish the character of the convul sions—I have had under my observation cases of traumatic tetanus—in cases of traumatic tetanus arising from some lesion, the symptoms are precisely the same, as in cases of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus—the disease begins with stiffness about the jaw—the symptoms then extend themselves to the other muscles of the trunk of the body, and the symptoms gradually deve lops themselves—when once disease has begun there are remissions, but I should say not complete and entire remissions—there is a diminution of the severity, but not a total subsidence; the patient does not express himself as quite comfortable or well—I speak from my own experience solely—as to the usual period that elapses between the commencement and the termination of the disease, the cases may be divided into two classes; there is an acute class and a chronic class, the acute cases will terminate in the course of three or four days, chronic cases will go on from nineteen to twenty two or twenty three days, and perhaps even longer—I do not think that I have known a case in which death occurred within four days in my own experience, but I know that some cases are related—in tetanus properly speaking, the extre mities are affected, but not so severely as the muscles of the trunk—the affection of the extremities is at a late stage—the locking of the jaw is an early symptom—epilepsy does not 'produce tetanus or tetanic symptoms—it will produce convulsions, and sometimes the convulsions of epilepsy assume somewhat of a tetanic character, but they are essentially distinct from tetanus; they are very different from tetanus—when the epileptic con vulsions assume somewhat of a tetanic form they are very quickly over, not persistent, not continuous—in epilepsy there is an abolition of consciousness for the time: that is a distinguishing feature of epilepsy as distinguished from all other convulsive diseases, and from tetanus—I should say that apoplexy is not accompanied with tetanic convulsions; perhaps I may be allowed to state that sometimes when there is an effusion of blood into the brain, and a particular portion of the brain is involved for a time, an apo plectic patient may exhibit something of tetanic convulsions, the muscles are thrown into short tetanic convulsions—the consciousness in such a case would be completely destroyed—having heard the symptoms described of this gentleman's seizure and death, and also the appearances after death at the post mortem examination, I am not of opinion that there was either epilepsy or apoplexy.

Q. You have been in attendance on Mr. Bamford? A. I have seen him, with Dr. Tweedie—I have not seen him this morning, Dr. Tweedie has—he has had a severe attack of English cholera—I was very apprehensive of him for some hours.

DR. ALEXANDER TWEEDIE . I have been in attendance on Mr. Bamford—I saw him this morning; he has been labouring under a severe attack of English cholera—I should say that he is not able to attend and give evidence as a wit ness ( Dr. Bamford's deposition before W. W. Ward, Esq., Coroner, was read as follows ; I am a surgeon, residing at Rugeley. I attended upon Mr. Cook, at the

request of Mr. Palmer—I first saw him about 3 o'clock, on Saturday, 17th Nov.—I found him suffering from violent vomiting—his stomach could not retain a table spoonful of anything—he was in bed—I saw no other symp torn except sickness—he was in no pain—his pulse did not exceed seventy two—perfect moisture of the skin—perfectly sensible, no other symptom what ever, I prescribed the medicine for him—Mr. Palmer went up to my house—I prescribed a saline medicine to be taken in an effervescing state—in the evening Mr. Palmer called upon me between 7 and 8 o'clock to request I would go with him again—I then saw the deceased—sickness still continued—I gave him a slight opiate—Palmer stayed until I prepared the pills, and he took them away with him—I did not go with Mr. Palmer when he took the pills—between 5 and 9 o'clock on the Sunday morning Mr. Palmer called upon me again—I went with him—I saw Mr. Cook in presence of Mr. Palmer—he was still sick, and continued so—I remained with him about ten minutes, and he continued to eject all he took—he then asked me to neutralize the medicine, as he did not like to take it in an effervescent state—I did not see him take anything—I did not examine what came from him—I saw several basins, and saw him throw up—the vomit was clear—I saw no appearance of bile, or in any way discoloured—he did not throw any blood from his stomach—what came from it was as clear as water—I saw him again between 6 and 7 o'clock on the Sunday evening—Mr. Palmer asked me to go with him—he still continued sick and bad—no pain what ever—the skin quite moist when I saw him, he said his bowels had been moved twice or three times—his motions were in a natural state, and con tained bile—no blood was with the motions—I made pressure upon the stomach, but he did not complain of any tenderness or pain whatever—I last saw him on Sunday, between 5 and 9 o'clock in the morning; he still complained of sickness, and had thrown up—on Monday I altered his medi cine—I mixed the medicine and sent it to the Talbot; it was a draught to be taken every three or four hours—it was composed of three drachms of sulphate of magnesia, two of hyoscyamus, simple syrup, and one and a half drachm of tincture of henbane and five oz. of infusion of roses, made up in a six 02. bottle—a fourth part to be taken every three or four hours—I did not see him take the medicine—I saw the bottle in his bedroom, and some of it had been taken—he said the medicine agreed with him, and he had not been sick-since he took it—he had taken a basin of coffee, and a basin of broth; he said he should continue the medicine as it had done him a great deal of good—I saw him in the evening again, between 6 and 7 o'clock—he said he had been up and was comfortable, and wanted the two pills again in the evening, which I prepared and sent down—I sent them by my servant—I did not at any time see any pill box in the room—he had taken pills on each night from Saturday—they contained half a grain of morphia, one grain of calomel, four grains of rhubarb, divided into two pills, they were made up with a conserve of hip—between 7 and 8 o'clock on Tuesday morning I met Mr. Palmer in the street—he said he had been with Mr. Cook, that he was composed, and appeared very quiet and comfortable, and he did not wish him disturbed—on the same night Mr. Palmer called upon me between 7 and 8 o'clock, and asked me to go down—this was between 7 and 8 o'clock—he intro-duced me to Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth—in the presence of Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer I again examined Mr. Cook—this was the first time I saw any change in him—he was irritable and uncomfortable—his pulse was then between 80 and 90, a full pulse and firm—his mind appeared distressed

and irritable—he turned himself round in the bed, his face from me; stood on the left hand side of the bed, and Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer on the other—he turned towards Mr. Palmer, and said, "I will hare no more pills to-night"—Cook said he would take no more medicine—Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer came out of the room with me; we had a consultation together afterwards—Mr. Palmer and I went to my house—I made the pills in his presence—he asked me to write a direction; it was on a slip of paper, and was wrapped up with the box—they were the same pills I had before prescribed—I sealed them and gave them to Mr. Palmer—about a quarter past 12 o'clock on Wednesday morning I was called up and desired to go immediately to the Talbot—I there found Mr. Cook dead, and Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer stood by his bed side—the body was not then cold—his body was perfectly straight, and he lay on his back—I left Mr. Palmer and Mr. Jones in the room—I was present at the post mortem examination, Mr. Devonshire made it—Dr. Harland, Mr. Palmer, and" Mr. Newton were also present—the examination was made on 26th Nov., six days after death—the body had not changed colour—the stomach was opened, and nothing particular was found there—the intestines, there were secretions in the lower part of the bowels—I could not discover the cause of death—the heart was quite empty—I thought the vessels of the brain, after the skull was removed, were rather full—there did not appear to be any congestion of the brain—the lungs were perfectly healthy—they were not in the least congested, they did not appear diseased—I did not then notice the Mood—there was nothing in the blood to attract my attention—the effervescing mixture was twenty grains of carbonate of potash, two drachms of com pound tincture of cardamums, about two drachms of simple syrup and water—the acid was fifteen grains of tartaric acid in powder, fifteen grains in each paper—I keep the preparations of antimony, but gave him none—it was the acetate of morphia I gave him—ho one but myself mixed up the medicines—I keep strychnine locked up in a cupboard in the parlour—I carry the key—I may have about two drachms—it is sometimes used as a medicine—I have not used it for the last lour or five years—I am quite sure I made the pills from the same bottle, and no other—I have tartarized antimony and tartaric acid, but not close together—tartarized antimony in a pound bottle, and tartaric acid in a four-ounce bottle—I did not see the effervescing mixture after I made it, and Mr. Palmer took it away—I saw the mixture afterwards, when a portion had been taken, but I did not see the powders—the bottle containing the morphia is an ounce one, and is a stopper bottle—the other, strychnia, has a cork—the strychnia is tied up with leather—deceased's tongue was perfectly clear all the three days I saw him—I prepared the pills by candle light—I did not particularly observe deceased's eyes on Tuesday evening—I mixed up eight pills altogether, but at different times—his skin was moist—there was no fever—the heart was entirely empty—when I saw Mr. Cook on the Monday he did not complain that he had been ill—when I saw Mr. Palmer on the Tuesday he did say that Mr. Cook had had a fit—he also Said that Mr. Cook had had two fits before, but that he had not been called to him—when Mr. Palmer called upon me first it was on the Saturday, and he told me that he had dined with Mr. Cook on the previous day, and he had taken too much champagne—I said to Mr. Cook, "I understand you have been taking a little too much champagne"—Mr. Cook said he believed he had had a little too much, and that he was not in the habit of taking much—I have attended other patients for Mr. Palmer—the paper produced, containing the words, "One

pill directly, and repeated towards 10 o'clock," was the direction I sent with the first box of pills on the Saturday night—the other directions were different—they were, "The pills to be taken at bed time," or words to that effect—my opinion at the time deceased died was that he died from apoplexy—I certified to that effect—I think that the deceased died from the excite ment, from what I saw on the Tuesday night—I observed, when the skull was token off, that the blood vessels of the dura mater seemed enlarged and full—I have been a medical practitioner fifty-three years—I saw the brain divided—I am still of the same opinion as I was before I saw the body opened—I stated, in the presence of Dr. Harland, and those present, that I believed that deceased died of apoplexy—I saw the brain divided, and still I am of the same opinion—I should say the appearances I saw on the brain, after the skull cap was taken off, were sufficient to cause death—I attended Mrs. Palmer before her decease; also, Mr. Palmer's two—children; also, a gentleman who hail been staying at Mr. Palmer's a week or two—(he was no relation)—I cannot say that I have attended any one else for Mr. Palmer—those I attended all died—Mr. Palmer applied to me on the Sunday following deceased's death for a certificate, as deceased was to be buried the day following—I told him that, as it was his patient, he certainly ought to give a certificate—he wished me to fill the certificate up—he said, "I had rather you would give it"—I filled one up, out of my own book, at my house—he asked me what my opinion was as to the cause of death—I believe Mr. Palmer asked me for the certificate, before he asked me my opinion as to the cause of death—I cannot say that I ever knew apoplexy to produce rigidity of the limbs—I attributed the sickness the first two days I saw him, to the state of the stomach—on the Monday I saw Mr. Cook, he said he did not wish to take any medicine prepared either by Mr. Palmer or Mr. Jones, and that he wished me to prepare all his medicine—he told me on the Monday that he expected Mr. Jones, as a friend; that Mr. Palmer had had a letter from him that day, and that he would be here on the Tuesday.")

DR. TODD , continued. Having heard that evidence read, and taking it into consideration, together with what I have heard about the symptoms from the other witnesses, I am certainly not of opinion that death was pro duced by apoplexy or from epilepsy—I never knew tetanus arise either from syphilitic sores or from sore throat—there are poisons which will pro duce tetanic convulsions—the principal of those poisons are nux vomica, which contains, as its active principle, strychnine and brucia, and Saint Ignatius's bean also—I have never seen a case of death in a human subject from that poison, but I have seen animal life destroyed by strychnine fre quently—I can scarcely charge my memory as to what is the smallest quan tity which I have administered to an animal to take away life, because in those cases you generally give a largish dose so as to shorten life and bring on the symptoms as quickly as possible; half a grain, perhaps—I should not like to give a quarter of a grain in a human subject—I think it likely in some subjects that half a grain would destroy life—I think a grain would—I have seen it tried on cats, dogs, and frogs—I should think half a grain would destroy a cat—the symptoms which show themselves in an animal after strychnine has been administered to it, consist of strong tetanic convul sions—I have never given it in the form of a pill, I have generally given it in solution—I suppose it would act more speedily in solution—it's beginning to act depends very much upon the dose, a large dose would begin in ten minutes, a small one in half an hour to an hour—when it begins to show it's

effect, the symptoms are spasmodic action of the muscles, chiefly of the trunk and the spine—the spinal muscles produce a very marked opesthotonos, as it is called; the spine is drawn back, the head thrown back, and the trunk bowed in a very marked manner—the extremities are generally stiffened—there are violent jerks, and the muscles are all rendered stiff, and rigid, and hard from the spasm—that stifthess remains, once set in, it does not perfectly relax; fresh paroxysms come on, always accompanied by the peculiar curving back of the head and neck and spine—the movement of the muscles is a rigid jerk; I should call it a jerking motion—the legs and feet of the animal are forced out of their natural construction, decidedly—they are powerfully stiffened out, extended, and powerfully bent up, and jerked out again—the time it generally lasts before death puts an end to those struggles, would depend also on the intensity of the disease, but I should expect that death would be over very soon indeed, from a quarter of an hour to half an hour, unless it is a small dose, when the symptoms gradually subside; that is to say, if it is a dose not sufficient to destroy life.

Q. Is there, in your opinion, a marked difference between such a case where death ensues after taking strychnia, and a case of tetanus such as you were describing just now from idiopathic or traumatic causes? A. I think the distinction is very marked—the continuity of the symptoms in strychnine poisoning is very characteristic—as long as the poisonous influ ence lasts the symptoms last, but the poisonous influence will subside after a time, I mean, if it is not strong enough to cause death; and then the spasms do not return—in tetanus, the symptoms from the commencement are continuous; they go on as long as the patient's powers are capable of enduring—the shortness of the duration of the symptoms is decidedly in favour of strychnine poisoning—brucia is analogous to strychnine in its effects, but it is weaker—I do not know that it is one sixth the strength of strychnia—there are no other poisons that produce convulsions of a tetanic character that I know of—having heard the symptoms described which attended this gentleman's death, in my opinion they are not referable to idiopathic or traumatic tetanus—I never saw a person die from the admini stration of strychnia—I have seen a person suffer from the administration of an over-dose—one instance I perfectly recollect, and I may have seen another—the patient there had taken too much—it was given medicinally—there was the oposthotonos, such as I have described in the case of animals, and there was consciousness perfectly retained—in that particular case there was also dilatation of the pupils—there was a peculiar convulsion of the muscles of the trunk, causing oposthotonos, and the limbs were stif fened out, and there was an oppression of the breathing—the difficulty of breathing is common to both tetanus, properly so called, and to tetanic con vulsions from strychnia, from the effect produced en the respiratory muscles—in the case I am speaking of, where the patient took too ranch, my impression is, if there was any action in the jaw. it was very slight.

Q. Does it occur to you, as distinct from cases of real tetanus, that in the case of Mr. Cook he was able to swallow a liquid? A. I think it is an important distinction, not so much that he was able to swallow, as that he seems to have been able to swallow sufficiently easily, and that there was no rigidity of the muscles of the jaw, and none of that peculiar description of countenance which Dr. Curling described in cases of tetanus from disease or from wounds—the patient was affected who took the over dose of strychnia, not more than an hour, or a couple of hours, and then it went off—judging from the cases I have seen of animal life destroyed by strvchnia, and the

case of my patient who took too much of it, on the one hand, and the cases of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus on the other, and having heard the symptoms described which attended Mr. Cook's attack and death, I think the symptoms were those of tetanus from strychnia.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. I believe the effect in tetanus, whether idiopathic or traumatic, is the same on the nerves of the spine? A. It is not unlikely that it is so—the particular effect on the nerves is unknown—in the disorder of convulsions, there are cases sloping into each other by imperceptible grades, from mild convulsions to rigid tetanus—chronic convulsions may be severe as well as mild—chronic and tonic convulsions are essentially different—you may have a chronic and a tonic convulsion, but not in the same muscle—chronic is more the irregular action of the muscles, irregular action stimulating somewhat more the volun tary action, of a more violent kind—tonic is a more or less persistent con traction—I have published some lectures on "Diseases of the Brain and Nervous System."

Q. I find in that you say, "That tetanus may be produced through the blood, is shown by the results of the administration of strychnia, which exactly imitate the tetanic symptoms in every respect; so that you may at will develop the phenomena of tetanus in an animal by giving him strych nine, or injecting it into his blood, but you cannot cause it by external injuries;" there you say it imitates the tetanic symptoms in every respect; do you adhere to that opinion? A. I adhere to the opinion that it exactly resembles the convulsions of tetanus—the statement is incorrect if it be interpreted to mean that it produces the exact phenomena of the disease in a clinical sense.

Q. You have been describing a case of traumatic tetanus in this book, and then you say, "That tetanus may be produced through the blood, is shown by the results of the administration of strychnia, which exactly imitate the tetanic symptoms in every respect;" that is the symptom I presume you have been describing; you say also, in the same part of your work, "We may ask, what is the nature of the morbid process set up in these centres? Te that it may be confidently replied, as the result of repeated examinations, that it is not inflammation, nor anything allied thereto; and it may with quite as much certainty be affirmed that it is a state identical with that which strychnine is capable of producing"? A. I have no doubt the pecu liar irritation of the nerves in tetanus is identical with the peculiar irrita tion of the nerves in strychnine poisoning, but I should not say that trau matic tetanus admits of a great variety of symptoms.

Q. But sometimes one set of muscles are affected, and sometimes ano ther? A. I do not know that there is such a marked difference as that—there are cases with which I am familiar where the limbs are affected, but the limbs become affected late; after the jaw.

COURT . Q. Do you know any instance of the limbs being affected before the jaw? A. No.

MR. GROVE . Q. Are you speaking from what you have seen, or what you have read? A. I do not recollect any instance where the limbs were affected before the jaw—I am sorry to say that I am not familiar with Dr. Curling's book.

Q. In the case I have just read, you state, "It fortunately happened that we were to have a post mortem examination under very favourable circumstances; it was made only four hours after death, when, if there had been any morbid appearances, they would have been free from the fallacy of

post mortem change;" now is not the examination shortly after death, of the spinal cord, important? A. In a pathological point of view it is—there is, to a certain extent, a fallacy; there are morbid appearances produced by changes after death which sometimes simulate diseased conditions before death.

COURT . Q. If there had been diseased appearances when examined some time after death, would there have been diseased appearances if the exami nation had been prior to it? A. I. think if certain diseased appearances had existed before death, they would have been recognisable as long as the spinal cord could be recognised.

MR. GROVE . Q. Decomposition would alter the structure of the spinal cord? A. The signs of decomposition are sufficiently evident, they could be distinguished by any careful anatomist—supposing the spine to be affected by decomposition, you would not be able to speak with certainty as to simple softening, if the examination had been long after death.

Q. Now, you say in your book, "There was however," in the case which you have spoken of, "as I had anticipated, no morbid appearances which seemed to offer any explanation of the disease; the nervous centres, both brain and spinal cord, were perfectly healthy; perhaps the brain contained a little more blood than usual: a fact not to be wondered at when we con sider the violence of the paroxysms; the grey matter of the brain was perfectly natural, and its demarcation peculiarly distinct: indeed, this remarkable distinctness may have been morbid, and may have indicated an undue functional activity of these parts;" and you say, "This case illus trates the little hope we have of obtaining by post mortem examination any other than negative information as regards the particular state of the nerv ous system;" is it not the fact that the indications of tetanic disorder are slight? A. Not during life; but after death there is nothing in the port mortem examination on which any one could positively say that the patient died from the ordinary disease of tetanus—granules or small bodies dis covered in the arachnoid of the spine, would not be considered as indicating tetanus; I think granules on the spinal cord, such as I have heard described, are not likely to cause tetanus—I am not aware that in several cases the deposition of small patches has been discovered on the arachnoid—I know no cases which have been attended by Mr. Travers.

Q. In the animals which you saw, to whom strychnia was administered, did you observe, after the attack had come on, a remarkable intolerance of touch, that they could not bear to be touched? A. I should scarcely call it an intolerance of touch, but by touching them the spasms were apt to be excited—I observed, in some of those cases, that they went off into a second spasm immediately they were touched—that is commonly observed in animals poisoned by strychnine—as long as the influence of the poison lasts, that tendency remains; I cannot specify time; as long as the influence of the poison acts; I cannot tell you approximately—I examined anatomi cally several animals that were killed by strychnine—I observed the heart—I do not think the right ride of the heart was generally full—it was empty, I think, generally, and the heart contracted a good deal—in all the oases I think that I have seen, I have seen the heart contracted—I saw those cases at various times—I have not made any experiments lately—I dare say I did at the time take memorandums, but I cannot lay my hands on them—the last I saw were some years ago—I can undertake to speak distinctly from my recollection as to the state of the heart, that it was generally empty on both sides, not distended—in those cases where strychnine was admini stered,

stored, I think the cause of death was partly due to the difficulty of action of the respiratory muscles, but chiefly to a general nervous exhaustion which the violence of the spasm produced—the difficulty of action of the respi ratory muscles would not tend to leave the heart full—I do not think strychnine asphyxiates; there are differences of opinion on that subject—I think it is not generally laid down in the books that animals die with true asphyxia.

Q. After describing the symptoms, Dr. Taylor says, "The symptoms soon cease after a short interval; the chest is so fixed as to give it an appearance of suffocation; after several of such attacks, the patient dies asphyxiated;" do you agree with that? A. No, I do not agree with that—I think if animals died asphyxiated, you would have invariably the right side of the heart frill of blood, which is not the case.

Q. I find Dr. Christison, in his book, describing the paroxysm, says, "At length a fit takes place more violent than any before it, and the animal perishes suffocated," which means pretty much the same thing as asphyxiated, does it not? A. The expression is frequently used loosely—I think "suffo cated" is used more loosely than "asphyxiated"—a person with spasm of the glottis, dies with spasm or asphyxia—if the animal dies asphyxiated, I think it is usual that the right side of the heart is filled with blood—patients sometimes have convulsions after taking morphia, but I think they are more of an epileptic character—I have never witnessed them—I know of such from my reading—morphia is a vegetable alkaloid, as strychnine is—the time in which, after morphia, the symptoms would come on, would, I should think, be very late.

Q. Later than in strychnia? A. It depends on the dose entirely—I cannot answer the question, it is not a subject I have studied—in any case of strychnia that I have witnessed, I cannot say whether I have seen the paroxysms come on as late as an hour and a half after the administration of the poison—I should consider it quite possible—I cannot remember—I have not seen, in cases of animals, the jaw fixed (trisxnus) in oases of strychnia poisoning, in any marked way—I have no doubt the muscles of the jaw may be affected to a certain extent, but not in the marked way in which it is in tetanus—I cannot say whether trisxnus is a frequent effect of strychnia—I cannot charge my recollection on that point.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. At all events, if it is a symptom, though not in a marked way, at what period of the affection does it generally come on? A. I should expect that trismus would come on soon, but it is not a marked symptom—in death from what I call tetanus, I should not expect to find anything particular about the heart—I have seen post mortem exami nations made where death has arisen from, trismus; in ordinary tetanus the heart is not filled; I have no doubt blood is sometimes contained in heart.

Q. Do you find a distinction in that respect between cases of ordinary tetanus and cases of tetanic convulsions after strychnia? A. Nothing very marked—my impression is, the heart becomes strongly contracted after strychnia, more than after ordinary tetanus—the spasm, I think, extends to the heart—that would expel the blood from the heart, though, perhaps, not all—it would prevent sufficient dilatation of the heart to receive its full supply.

Q. My friend asked you whether there were any cases of convul sions of the milder form going up to the extreme climax of tetanic rigidity; what are the distinctions? are they marked? would a medical

practitioner have any difficulty in knowing a case of general convul sions as distinguished from a case of tetanic convulsions? A. I think not—I have said that it would be desirable, in a pathological point of view, to examine the spinal cord immediately after death, with a view to detect any abnormal condition of it—I heard the description given by the gentle men who did examine it, and from their description it appeared to me that those parts were in such a condition that any bony deposit would have been discovered, certainly—there would be no difficulty in discovering them, none whatever—they do not undergo any decomposition after death, at least not for a considerable time—I heard it mentioned that the muscles were in the same rigid condition; that struck me as a very remarkable feature in the case—I cannot speak with absolute certainty, because it is a feature quite new to me; I have only beard one fact, since this trial began, which was a case in which a eat was poisoned by strychnine, and the muscles continued to be rigid six days after death—I have not heard it on oath during the trial—I did not see it myself—I cannot tell you whether in cases of ordinary tetanus that rigidity continues for so long a period—I have inquired into the point, and cannot tell you.

SIR BENJAMIN BRODIE., M. D . I was surgeon at St. George's Hospital for many years—I have had considerable practice—in the course of that practice I have had tinder my superintendence a great many cases of death from teta nus—death from idiopathic tetanus in this country, according to my expe rience, is very rare; the ordinary death from tetanus is from traumatic tetanus—I have carefully attended during the trial to the description given of the symptoms on the Monday night and the Tuesday night, attending the death of Mr. Cook—in my opinion, as far as there was spasmodic contrac tion of the muscles, the symptoms resembled those of traumatic tetanus, but as to the course which the symptoms took, that was entirely different—I attended to the detail of the narration of the attack on the Monday night, and its ceasing, and the patient being comparatively composed and comfortable during the Tuesday, and then to the attack again about 10 minutes before 12 o'clock on the Tuesday night.

Q. Will you explain in what respect the symptoms are entirely dif ferent? A. The symptoms of traumatic tetanus always begin, as far as I have seen, very gradually; the stiffness of the lower jaw being invariably the symptom first complained of; at least, so it has been, I believe, in my experience—the contraction of the muscles of the back is always a later symptom, generally much later—the muscles of the extremities are affected in a much less degree than those of the neck and trunk, except in some oases where the injury has been in a limb, and an early symptom has been spasmodic contraction of the muscles of that limb—I do not myself recollect a case of ordinary tetanus in which there was that contraction of the muscles of the hand which I understand was stated to have existed in this instance—then ordinary tetanus rarely runs its course in less than two or three days, and often is protracted to a much longer period—I know one ease only in which the disease was said to have terminated in as short a time as twelve hours, but probably in that case the early symptoms bad been overlooked—then I never knew these symptoms in ordinary tetanus to last for a few minutes, then subside, and then come on again after twenty-four hours—I think that those are the principal points of difference which I perceive between the symptoms of ordinary tetanus and those which I have heard described—I have not witnessed the tetanus or tetanic convulsions which are the result of strychnia—I have not witnessed them in the human form—I have not made any experiments myself—I do not believe that death here arose from

what we ordinarily call tetanus, either idiopathic or traumatic—I never knew death from tetuuus as the result of sore throat, or the result of a chancre, or any other form of syphilitic disease; I never heard of a case—in my judg ment the symptoms of death, such as I have heard described, are not con sistent with a fit of apoplexy.

Q. Or epilepsy? A. Perhaps I had better say at once that I never saw a case in which the symptoms that I heard described arose from any disease—when I ray that, of course I refer not to particular symptoms, but to the general course which the symptoms took.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Have you had any experi ence of idiopathic tetanus? A. I believe I remember one case in our hospital in the physician's ward, which was shown me as a case of idiopathic tetanus, but I doubted its deserving the name of tetanus—it was a very slight case of tetanic convulsions—I do not remember the particulars—I have never seen the syphilitic poison produce convulsions, except as a consequence of disease in the bones of the head.

DR. HENRY DANIEL . I have now retired from the profession—for up wards of twenty-eight years I was surgeon to the Bristol Hospital—I was in practice nearly thirty years, and I was a student some eight or nine years—in the course of my experience and practice I had occasion to see a considerable number of cases of tetanus—if I take it at a very small ratio of one a year, it would be nearly thirty—I must have seen, I should say, certainly that number—they were not all from wounds—there were two certainly of idiopathic tetanus—one of those cases terminated fatally—one did not—idiopathic tetanus is a thing of very rare occurrence.

Q. Did you find in the cases of idiopathic tetanus that came under your observation any difference in the symptoms between them and traumatic tetanus? A. It appeared, in my judgment, simply a modified degree of the symptoms of ordinary traumatic tetanus, not so severe; arising from in ternal causes rather than external violence—I was not able to trace those two cases of idiopathic tetanus to any particular cause—I have heard the other witnesses describe the course which the symptoms of ordinary tetanus run—I agree in that from my experience—I heard the description given of the symptoms which accompanied the attack of Mr. Cook before his death—it appears to me that the circumstances of his attack are distinguishable from those cases of tetanus which came under my experience.

Q. Will you point out any instance in which you found a marked difference? A. I should repeat very probably the words of Sir Benjamin Brodie—the tetanus, as far as my experience goes, invariably begins with uneasiness in the lower jaw, followed by spasms of the muscles of the trunk, and most frequently extending to the muscles of the limbs—the muscles of the limbs are affected generally towards the end—lock jaw is almost invariably a symptom in these cases of tetanus, traumatic in particular—the commencement of lock jaw is one of the earliest symptoms—I do not recollect that clenching of the hands is a frequent symptom—I think I have seen it, but I do not think a clenched hand is an ordinary symptom of common tetanus; nor twisting of the foot so as to turn it out from its proper position—I do not remember that as a symptom.

Q. Of those twenty or thirty cases that have come under your personal experience, what has been the ordinary duration? A. have endeavoured, since the subject has been mooted, to recollect what was the shortest period, and I cannot recollect any case that took less than from thirty to forty hours—as surgeon to the Bristol Hospital, I have seen a good many cases of syphilitic disease—I never knew a syphilitic sore to produce tetanus—in

my opinion, the symptoms which I have heard described in Mr. Cook cannot be referable to apoplexy.

COURT . Q. Would either the primary or the secondary symptoms of syphilis produce tetanus? A. Not in my opinion—I never knew of such a thing.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. You say you think the symptoms cannot be referred to apoplexy? A. Certainly not; or to epilepsy—both in the case of epilepsy and apoplexy there is a loss of consciousness—in all the cases of tetanus that have come under my observation consciousness has been retained throughout, the whole period of the attack—in the cases that have come under my experience, the symptoms have invariably been continuous, without any interruption—I never heard of a case of several hours intervening, when the patient was totally free from the disease—when the symptoms did set in, they generally commenced very mildly and gradually increased in intensity.

Q. Bearing in mind all your past recollection and experience of the symptoms of tetanus in ordinary cases, in your judgment could the symptoms of Mr. Cook be referred either to idiopathic or traumatic teta nus? A. In my judgment they could not.

COURT . Q. Could they be referred to any disease that you know? A. None.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. Do you not know from your reading, that there are many cases of traumatic tetanus where there is a long interval between the symptoms? A. I never saw such a thing occur—I am not aware, from my reading, that there are numerous cases mentioned in which there was a long interval of some hours—I have not read Dr. Todd's book, or Dr. Curling's—you must recollect I have been oat of practice some seventeen or eighteen years—I have not read Dr. Copland on con vulsions—I have not looked modi into the reported eases of tetanus of late, nor do I recollect my reading on the subject—I am not aware that excitement and irritation from vomiting are given at the cause of tetanic convulsions—the symptoms of tetanic convulsions vary—as far as my expe rience goes, the leading symptoms always go almost in the same continuous route—I do not think that a pure and ordinary tetanus sometimes affects some muscles of the body and at other times others: I am speaking of the ordinary tetanus, traumatic—I do not think they do vary to any great extent—there may be an affection of a muscle in this man that there is not in the other, in a leg or an arm—I cannot take upon me to say whether it proceeds from the spine—the cause of death in tetanic affections arises from exhaustion not unfrequently.

Q. Does it not frequently arise from asphyxia? A. Well, I do not like the term asphyxia—I will say suffocation, arising from the absence of ability to respire—I think that might be a cause, I am not positive upon it—I have seen post mortem examinations of persons who have died of tetanus—it is a great many years ago—I can recollect the general outlines—I do not think the heart is found full in tetanus; I cannot tell whether it is in death from suffocation—cases of tetanus proceeding from wounds, wounds would form a very small proportion of the cases that are followed by tetanic symptoms: infinitesimally small—I could not say whether that would be the same if syphilis were the cause—I really do not understand you—that would not be the same in another class of wounds, because it affects a different tissue—I recollect the post mortem examinations of cases of tetanus sufficiently well to say that there was not any direct alteration of the normal condition of any part of the body that accounted for the tetanic attack.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. If I understand you, the examination, how ever

recently after death, of the spinal card and marrow never, in any case that you know of, gave any indication or showed any cause from which the tetanus could be derived? A. Never the slightest.

DR. SAMUEL SOLLY . I am surgeon at St. Thomas's Hospital—I have been connected with St Thomas's Hospital as lecturer and surgeon twenty eight years—during that time I have witnessed many cases of tetanus—I should find it difficult to state exactly how many; but I had six or seven under my own care, and I may have seen from ten to fifteen more, but I do not bear more than that in mind—there was one case in which I was doubtful whether it was traumatic or idiopathic; the wound was so slight and the symptoms so indistinct that it was questionable—the rest were decidedly traumatic—supposing that one to be a case of idiopathic tetanus, the symp toms were slower in their progress, and generally rather milder than in the other cases—I can remember no case of tetanus that I have witnessed which occupied under thirty hours before the disease arrived at a final point—in those cases the symptoms were always progressive—I have heard the description given by the witnesses of Mr. Cook's attacks on the Monday and Tuesday—that account differs essentially from what took place in the cases of tetanus to which I have referred—in all the cases of tetanus that I have seen, there has been a marked expression of the countenance, that is the first symptom—it is a sort of grin—it is so peculiar, that having once seen it you can never mistake it—the cases also differ more particularly in this fact, that in the symptoms which I have heard detailed there were violent convulsions on the Monday night, I believe, and on the Tuesday the individual was entirely free from any discomfort about the face or jaw—in the cases that have come under my notice the symp toms have always been continuous, and that expression of the counte nance and the more or less fixedness of the jaw is the last symptom to disappear—in ordinary tetanus the muscles of the face are first affected, then the muscles of the jaw, then the trunk, and then the limbs—in my judgment, the symptoms described in Mr. Cook's case were not referable to apoplexy or epilepsy, nor to any disease that I have ever witnessed.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You say that in all the cases that you have seen, there was a marked expression of the countenance, a sort of grin; is there a Latin term for that, which is known? A. Yes, risus sardonicus —that is not common in all forms of violent convulsions—it frequently occurs in all violent convulsions which assume, without being tetanus, a tetanic form or appearance—they are not a numerous class—it is difficult to distinguish between them and idiopathic tetanus in the onset, but not in the progress—I have only seen one case of idiopathic tetanus.

Q. Then when you answered that question of mine, you spoke from your reading, and not from your experience? A. I did not know your question applied to idiopathic tetanus alone—epilepsy itself is a disease of a convulsive character—I heard the account that was given by Mr. Jones of the few last minutes before Mr. Cook died; that he uttered a piercing shriek, fell back, and died—I heard the description of the shriek, with the convulsion; but it was the shriek that called the medical man into the room—in some respects that last shriek, and the paroxysm that occurred immediately afterwards, would bear a resemblance to epilepsy—all epileptic convulsions are not attended with an utter want of consciousness—death from tetanus, accompanied with convulsions, leaves seldom any trace behind; but death from epilepsy leaves a trace behind it generally; some slight effusion of blood on the brain, or congestion of the vessels—I am not aware that it frequently happens that convulsions that have not assumed the peculiar

features of epilepsy destroy life find leave no trace in the body; it has not come within my own cognizance.

COURT . Q. Is there any difference in that respect between infants and adults? A. I have seen comparatively little of the diseases of infants.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Are the convulsions that take place in epilepsy of a tetanic character? A. Not at all, and I have seen a great deal of the convulsions of epilepsy.

Q. Are they ever accompanied by that clenching of the hands that we have heard described, or the distortion of the feet and toes? A. The con vulsions from epilepsy are accompanied with every contortion; not permanent—I say that in the case of Mr. Cook, he did not die from epilepsy, because there were none of the symptoms of epilepsy—when the patient dies with epilepsy he dies perfectly unconscious and comatose, his consciousness is en tirely gone—I have never seen any case of convulsive disease at all like this—laceration of the brain from injury will produce convulsions which will termi nate in death; a sudden injury to the spinal cord will produce convulsions which will terminate in death; irritation of the teeth in infants will produce convulsions—those convulsions are not in their onset similar to the convul sions of tetanus, and there is no progressive movement—there is no appear ance about the face or jaw which you have in tetanus; I have never missed that sign in tetanus.

HENRY LEE . I am surgeon to King's College and the Lock Hospital—I have been professionally acquainted with the Lock Hospital some eighteen years—it is an establishment exclusively devoted to syphilis—at present I suppose not less than 3,000 cases a year come under my notice at King's College and at the Lock Hospital—I have seen a considerable number of syphilitic affections of the throat, and also that phase of the disease called chancre—I have never known an instance in which either of those forms of disease have terminated in tetanus—I have not had much experience myself in cases of tetanus.

COURT . Q. Will either primary or secondary symptoms of syphilis pro duce tetanus? A. I have never seen nor have I read of a case—I have heard of one.

DR. ROBERT CORBETT . I am now a physician practising at Barrhead, near Glasgow—in Sept., 1845, I was medical clerk to the Glasgow Boyal Infirmary—I remember a patient being in the hospital of the name of Agnes French, or a name like that—I think she was called Sennet—it is the same person—she passed in the hospital by the name of Agnes Sennet—she died on the 27th Sept., 1845—the matron of the ward said that she had taken pills belonging to another patient—she died with symptoms of poisoning from strychnia—I saw her at the time she was under the symptoms—I had seen her during the day before that, perfectly well.

COURT . Q. For what was she a patient in the hospital? A. She had been taken in for a disease in the head, a skin disease—she was perfectly well on the day she died.

MR. JAMES . Q. She had taken some strychnia pills that had been placed there for a paralytic patient? A. Yes; I was told so—I was called to her when she was under the influence of poison—she was in bed when I saw her—there was retraction of the mouth—the face was much suffused and red dened, congested, the pupils dilated, the head was bent back, the spine curved, and the muscles very rigid, and hard like a board; her arms were stretched out and her hands clenched; severe paroxysms recurring every few seconds at short intervals—she died in about an hour and a quarter after taking the pills—I think when I was called to her the paroxysms did not last so long—they

increased in severity—from the time I was called to her till her death, barely an hour elapsed—there should hare been a quarter of a grain of strychnia in each pill that was made up for the paralytic patient—she took three pills—they were pills to be taken one each night, or night and morn ing—this girl took three of them.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You say there was a retrac tion of the mouth? A. The angles of the mouth were drawn back—that was continuous, but it was worse at times, a sort of twitching—I do not think I observed it after death—in my report I think I said the hands were semi-bent—they were not clenched after death—they were semi bent—that was forty-four hours after death—I think that semi bending of the hand is a very common thing in cases of death by violent convulsions—she died in an hour and a quarter after taking the medicine—she was attacked by the symptoms about twenty minutes after taking the medicine—I tried to make her vomit with a feather—she vomited partially, she did not vomit much—that was after giving her an emetic, and after tickling the fauces with a feather.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. There was no spasmodic action? A. There was a grinding of the teeth—the spasmodic action followed—she could not open her mouth to swallow anything—there was not what I should call lock jaw in ordinary tetanus.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Was she not in such a condition after she had taken the poison, that the mere touching of her sent her off into a paroxysm! A. I do not recollect.

DR. EBENEZER WATSON . I am surgeon of the Glasgow Infirmary. I re member the case of Agnes Sennet, of which the last witness has been speaking, perfectly well—I was called in to attend her—it must have been about a quar ter of an hour, I should think, after the symptoms first began, after she was taken ill—I found her in violent convulsions—her arms were stretched out and rigid—the muscles of the body were also rigid—they were kept quiet by rigidity—when I saw them they had become rigid—her feet and legs were also rigid—just at that moment she did not breathe; the muscles were kept quite quiet by the tetanic rigidity of the whole frame just few that second—it was not carried on perceptibly at all—that was during the excess of the paroxysm—that paroxysm subsided almost immediately—it was renewed afterwards and fresh paroxysms came on after a very short interval—I cannot exactly say how long, she was about half an hour dying—those paroxysms occurred at intervals until it destroyed her—she seemed perfectly conscious during the whole time—I do not recollect the state of her hands, I did not observe them after death—I cannot recollect the state of them—her body was opened afterwards—the walls of the heart were tiff and the cavities empty—my father published an account of it—I do not remember the state of the fingers and thumbs.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. In the post mortem examination, what part of the body did you open first? A. I cannot answer that; I did not make the inspection myself—the head was opened when I saw her—if the head was opened first a great deal of blood might flow out—that might tend to empty the heart.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Were you present at the post mortem examination? A. I was—there was nothing particular about the condition of the spinal cord, it was quite healthy, I saw nothing to indicate any abnormal condition there.

COURT . Q. Was the heart contracted? A. Yes.

DR. JAMES PATTERSON . In the year 1845, I was an apprentice in the

laboratory of the Infirmary at Glasgow—it was my business to dispense the prescriptions—I remember a prescription being dispensed in the month of December in that year for a paralytic patient of the name of M'Intyre—it was in the form of pills—they contained strychnia.

COURT . Q. What was the vehicle to convey it? A. They were made up with flour and syrup.

MR. WELSBY . Q. What quantity of strychnia? A. The prescription was four pills, one grain; a quarter of a grain in each pill.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Is this flour and syrup the usual thing in which medicine of this kind is made up? A. It is always the mode in which I have prepared them from instructions in the laboratory.

COURT . Was there any noise about their being taken by another person? A. There was.

MARY KELLY . In September, 1845, I was in the Infirmary at Glasgow, as a patient—there was a paralytic patient in the same ward that I had to attend to—there was also a patient who went by the name of French, or Sennet, who died shortly after I was there—she was suffering from a sore head—in the course of the afternoon on which Sennet died, I was turning the wheel to the paralytic patient—it was to be applied to the skin for some purpose—while I was doing that, the girl who had the sore head came up and asked me what I was doing—there were some pills there, which the paralytic patient was to take, in a box—while the girl with the sore head was there, I saw the paralytic patient take one of those pills out of the box and swallow it—that was according to the order that had been given—she was to take one pill at a time—after she had done that she handed the box with the other pills in it to French—I saw her take two of those pills, she swallowed them—I only saw her take two—she then came and sat down by the ward fire—soon after that she was taken ill, I think in about three quarters of an hour—she fell back on the floor, and I went for a nurse—we then lifted her into bed, and the doctor was sent for—I noticed her after she was put upon the bed—I was in the next bed to her—I remained up some time after this—the nurse cut her clothes off; she never moved after she was put upon the bed; she was just like a poker—I did not notice her hands or her feet—I was just aside of her when she died, I was standing on the floor—she did not say anything—she never spoke after she fell.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. How long was it after she took the pills that the symptoms of illness came upon her? A. I cannot rightly tell, it is so long back—from the time that she was carried to the bed was three quarters of an hour; from the time she took the pills to the time that she appeared ill, was about three quarters of an hour.

CAROLINE HICKSON . In Oct., 1848, I was nurse in the family of Mrs. Serjeantson Smith—I now live at Sherborn, near Basingstoke—I was nurse and lady's maid—the family at that time were residing near Romsey, about two miles from Romsey, in Hampshire—on 30th Oct., 1848, Mrs. Serjeant son Smith was unwell—she was suffering from weakness—there was a Mr. Jones, a druggist, in Romsey, with whom we dealt for drugs—a prescrip tion had been sent to Mr. Jones to make up for Mrs. Smith—I remember the medicine being brought back from Mr. Jones—it was in the afternoon, about 6 o'clock—it was a mixture in a bottle, I saw my mistress take it—she took about half a wine glass full—on the following morning, as near as I can remember, about 5 or 10 minutes past 7 o'clock—it was in her bedroom—having given her that medicine, I left the room—I was alarmed by the ringing of the bell about five minutes after, or it might be ten—when I went into my mistress's room I thought she had fainted; she was leaning upon

a chair—she was off the bed, in her night dress—she appeared very shortly afterwards to suffer from what I thought spasms—I ran down and sent the coachman into Mr. Taylor's, the surgeon's—I then returned to my mis tress's room—when I returned I found some of the other servants with my mistress, assisting her—she was lying upon the floor—she screamed very much, but did not open her teeth, they were clenched—she asked to have her arms and legs held straight—I took hold of them, they were drawn up very much—she still screamed, and was in great agony—she requested some water to be thrown over her, and I did so—her feet were turned inwards—I put a bottle of hot water to her feet—that had no effect in relaxing the feet at all—she said that she felt easier a short time before she died—before she died, the last words she uttered were, "Turn me over"—I did so—she was lying on the floor—in a very few minutes after she said to me, "Turn me over," she died—she died after I turned her over, very quietly—she knew me during the whole time quite well—from the time that I gave her, by mistake, this medicine that morning, till she died, was, I think, about an hour and a quarter—it was about from five to ten minutes after I had given her the medicine before the bell was rung—she took about half a wine glass full of the medicine.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. Was it five or ten minutes after taking the medicine? A. Yes, from the time I saw her in the spasms when I was called up, she could not sit up at all—when I endeavoured to straighten her limbs, it was when she was in the paroxysm—she did not appear to take any notice of the cold water—she was then in the paroxysm—she only seemed easy for a few minutes before her death—it was a continual recurring fit—it lasted about an hour, or an hour and a quarter—her teeth were quite close during the whole time.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. You say it lasted an hour and a quarter; do I understand you to say the fit lasted an hour and a quarter? A. From the time I gave her the medicine until she died—after I gave her the medi cine I went in in about five or ten minutes—she was stiff, and was only relieved a very few minutes before her death—she was conscious all the time.

FRANCIS TAYLOR . I am a surgeon and apothecary at Romsey. I was so in the year 1848—I attended Mrs. Serjeantson Smith—I remember being summoned to her house one morning, and on going there finding her dead—I got there between eight and nine o'clock—the body was lying on the floor between the bed and some piece of furniture, up in a corner somewhere—the state of the limbs was pointed out to me by Caroline Hickson—the hands were very much contracted, clenched, and the feet were con tracted, turned inward—the soles of the feet were hollowed up, very hol low—the toes were contracted and the sole hollowed up; unnaturally so, remarkably so—that appeared to have been from recent spasmodic action, I should suppose, and the inner edge of each foot was turned up; the foot was twisted—the limbs were remarkably stiff—the body was still warm—the eyelids were tightly adherent almost to the eyeballs—the druggist who made up the prescriptions for the family was a person of the name of Jones—I saw him shortly afterwards running up to the house in a state of great excitement—I subsequently made a post mortem examination by order of the Coroner—I had not ordered any prescription for this lady on the day before, I had not seen her for some time—I think it was three days after death that I made the post mortem examination—at that time the con traction of the feet continued, but it had gone off somewhat from the rest of the body—this was somewhat the position of the hands three days after

death ( semi-bent )—I did not find any trace of disease in the body—the heart was contracted, and perfectly empty—I wish to say also that all the large arteries leading from the heart were quite empty, and the blood was fluid—I subsequently analysed the medicine of which she had taken a part, with Mr. Randall, of Southampton—it contained a large quantity of strychnia, undis solved, as well as dissolved—I know that it originally contained nine grains, of which Mrs. Smith had taken one-third, so that there were six grains left in the bottle—I took out the stomach and bowels, and made an examination of them to ascertain whether I could find any poison, but a very slight one, the proof was so perfect of her having taken poison—as far as it went, the examination was not satisfactory, not sufficient for me to swear to—I have no doubt, from the rough test that we tried, but ire really did not attend to that, because we had plenty of proof without it.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Does it not constantly hap pen in cases of death by ordinary convulsions, that the body in various parts of it is very much distorted? A. I am not aware that it shows after death—as a general rule, I should say, the body does not remain, in ordinary cases of death, in the position in which the deceased was at the time of death, I should think not—it is usual to lay out a body very soon after death—supposing that not to be done, the body stiffens, the rigor-mortis sets in, and the corpse stiffens; one or two limbs would remain, as at death; if an arm was left across the chest, it would stiffen so; if the hand were clenched when the man died, I do not know that it would stiffen so—I do not know of my own knowledge sufficiently as to those facts—there was a difficulty in laying out this body—the ankles were tied by a handkerchief, or some bandage, to bring them together.

COURT . Q. That you observed? A. Yes—I forget what the bandage was made of—the toes wished to turn inwards, and they had been forced—I am speaking now from a recollection of eight years ago—the handkerchief was employed to bring the ankles together.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You opened the body—where did you com mence? A. At the thorax and abdomen—we did not open the head until after we had finished the examination of the trunk—we took out part of the intestines with the duodenum.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. I do not know whether you examined the spinal cord. A. No, I did not.

CHARLES BROXHOLME . I was apprenticed to Mr. Jones in 1848, a chemist at Romsey—I was his only apprentice—he has since died—I remember a prescription coming to be made up for Mrs. Serjeantson Smith—it was a mixture of salicine, orange peel, and water—the salicine was kept on a high shelf, in a small bottle—upon the same shelf there was a bottle of strychnia—there was a mistake made, I believe, in the strychnia for the salicine.

COURT . Q. The error was by mistaking the two medicines? A. Yes.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. It is right to ask you, it was not done by you; I will ask you that for your own sake; it was not your mistake, but your poor master's? A. Yes—he destroyed himself afterwards.

JANE WITHAM . In March last I was in attendance on a lady who died—I remember her taking some medicine—after her taking that medicine she became ill—when she was first taken ill she complained of her back—she said "Oh, come, Mrs. Witham, to my back?"—I attended upon her, and went to her back—her head was thrown back, and her body stretched out—I could not get at her back—she was in bed—she had twitchings of the hands—her eyes were drawn aside and staring, and when I put my hand in front of them they did not at all relax their rigidity—she did not make any

request to her husband about her legs or her arms at that time—she first complained of being ill in this way on 25th Feb.—she died on 1st March—after these attacks of which she complained, she got better before they came on again—she had several attacks—I saw her in one on Monday, Wednes day, Thursday, a slight one on Friday, and one on Saturday—she died on the Saturday—the first attack was on Monday, 25th, the second on Wednesday, 27th, the third on Thursday, 28th, and on Friday a very slight one—on Satur day it commenced about a quarter past 8 o'clock, and she died at 20 minutes to 11 o'clock at night—between these attacks she was at times better and com posed—she was up on the Saturday afternoon—she complained principally of a pricking in her legs, and twitching of the muscles of the hands, and she compared them to a galvanic shock; she said she could compare them to noth ing else—during these attacks she wished her husband to rub her legs and arms—she died in one of those attacks—she was dead when Mr. Morley came.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You have told my learned friend she requested her husband to rub her arms and legs? A. Yes—that was at the commencement of the paroxysms, and before they had become strong; but on the Saturday night she could not bear her legs touched—that was the case when the spasms were strong upon her, upon the Saturday—the spasms were much stronger upon her on the Saturday than on the other days—she asked to be rubbed every day, except on Saturday—her limbs were extended rigidly—on the Saturday, during the intervals between the spasms, she did not ask to be rubbed—she did not speak but once or twice during the attack on Saturday—during the intervals of the spasms on the Saturday, touching her brought the spasms on—she could not swallow during the spasms on the Saturday—we never attempted her but with one spoonful of cocoa, and I do not think she got that into her mouth—she had a draught given her during the week, but not on the Saturday, her mouth was quite closed—after death her body was stiff—I did not stay long in the house after her death—I left it immediately, within 10 minutes—she appeared to be sensible on the Saturday from about half an hour to an hour, I think—that was from a quarter past 8 o'clock till after 9 o'clock—the remainder of that time she did not speak—her eyes were so fixed we could not tell whether she was sensible or not.

MR. JAMES . Q. On the Saturday before she died, were the spasms more violent than the other fits which she had had? A. A great deal—they were of the same kind, though more violent.

GEORGE MORLEY . I am a surgeon. I was the medical attendant upon the lady to whom the last witness alluded—I had been attending her for about two months before her death, for functional derangement—I remember seeing her on the Monday before her death—she was then in bed, apparently comfortable, but whilst standing by her bedside, I observed several convulsive twitchings of her arm—they were slight—she had then recovered from a more severe attack; she told me so—I referred them at that time in my own mind to hysteria, and altered my medicine in consequence—I saw the same symptoms once again during the week, I think on Thursday; I am not sure whether it was Wednesday or Thursday—I saw her on Saturday, the day on which she died, about the middle of the day—I am not sure of the hour—she was much better then, quite in a composed state—she complained to me of an attack that she had had in the night—she spoke of pain and spasms, affection of the back and neck, spasmodic affection, and used the term shock in describing the convulsions—that is the substance of what she told me, every important point—I was sent for on the Saturday night hastily—Dr. Hobson, another medical gentleman, went with me—when I got

there I was met with the announcement that she was dead—we went into the room where the dead body was—we looked at it generally, but made no particular examination—on the Monday, in company with another medical gentleman; I made a post mortem examination—I did not find in any part of the body any disease which could account for death—there was no emacia tion, nor any wound or sore, except the trace of a mustard poultice which had been applied—there was a peculiar expression of anxiety about the countenance; the hands were semi-bent, the fingers curved; the feet were strongly arched—we made a careful examination of the stomach and it's contents, for the purpose of detecting, if we could, the presence of poison—we applied several colour tests, as they are called; nitric acid, followed by proto-chloride of tin; sulphuric acid, followed by bi-chromate of potass in the liquid and also in the solid state—I believe those are the best che mical tests to be applied to detect the presence of strychnia—they are not the whole, we applied others; they are the best—in each case we produced the appearance characteristic of strychnia—we afterwards made experiments by administering some of the contents of the stomach to animals, rather by inoculation than by administration—in one case we administered it by the mouth—the animals we used were two mice, two rabbits, and one guinea-pig—we inoculated with the contents taken from the stomach after sepa ration of the strychnine by chemical analysis.

COURT . Q. Without any addition? A. Without any addition, except the materials used in the analysis.

MR. WELSBY . Q. What result did you obtain? A. We observed in each of the animals more or less of the effects usually produced by the poison of strychnia, general uneasiness, difficult breathing, convulsions of the tetanic kind, muscular rigidity, arching backwards, especially of the head and neck, violent stretching out of the legs; death followed in four of the animals, in one in two minutes, that was a rabbit, in another in five minutes, and in the third in a little less than an hour, fifty-five minutes; that was a mouse; the guinea-pig suffered but slightly at first, and that animal having been left, was found dead the next day—the fifth animal, a rabbit, exhi bited very strongly marked symptoms of strychnia poison; it lay apparently dead for a while, but it recovered entirely, and is still living—I did not observe that the muscular rigidity continued after death without any inter mission, there was flaccidity immediately after death—the muscles relaxed, but soon became very rigid, I mean more so than was due to the rigor mortis —we afterwards made a similar series of experiments on similar animals with strychnia itself, pure strychnia, a great many, both fn a solid and in a liquid form—the symptoms and the results were exactly the same as those I have described in these animals.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. Had you occasion to observe in the case that you have been mentioning, that the suffering on touch caused a recurrence of the spasms in the patient? A. No, I did not see the patient, during any severe attack—I have frequently observed that with animals.

COURT . Q. The touch brings on the spasm? A. The touch brings on the spasm.

Mr. GROVE . Q. That is a very marked symptom, is it not? A. A very marked symptom, in animals very striking; directly you touch the animal that has been poisoned, it gives a sudden start, and it passes into a severe spasm—the patient that I have described was not, during the period that I saw her, in a state of insensibility at all—when I saw her she could swallow—that was during the week—I did not see her in the severer parts of the attack—I have not got my minutes of the post mortem —I have a copy—the

lungs were very much congested—there was a bloody serum in the pericardium surrounding the heart, in small quantities, and in the pleurae—there was a remarkable appearance in the muscles, in their colour—they were dark and soft.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Generally of the whole body? A. The muscles generally.

COURT . Q. You mean the flesh? A. Yes, the flesh.

MR. GROVE . Q. Was there a large amount of bloody serous effusion over the surface of the brain? A. A decided quantity, I would not say very large—there was not a large quantity of red fluid in the membranes of the spinal marrow, there was a notable quantity, but not a large quantity—there was serum slightly tinged with blood in the membranes of the spinal cord—the large spinal veins were much congested, and the membranes of the spinal marrow were also congested.

COURT . Q. We may call it the spinal cord, I suppose; was that much congested? A. Yes, much congested.

Mr. GROVE . Q. I believe you opened the head first? A. Yes—that led to a good deal of blood flowing out.

Q. Could you judge whether there had been much blood in the heart from what flowed out? A. It was a matter of inference, it might have flowed from other sources—a part of it would flow from the heart.

COURT . Q. You opened the head first, and a good deal of blood flowed out? A. Yes, from the blood-vessels supplying the head—a part of that might come from the heart, I mean during the dissection.

MR. GROVE . Q. Opening the head first would prevent you having an opportunity of judging properly whether the heart was full or empty I suppose? A. It would make it uncertain; it might partially empty the heart—I have examined the hearts of animals that have been poisoned by strychnia, many times: the right side of the heart is generally full.

Q. What is the longest time in animals at which you have perceived the first effect of the poison to come on after it has been taken? A. It is hard to say; in the guinea-pig we observed no severe effects for several hours—where I have administered strychnia itself to the animals, it has been from one to two hours.

COURT . Q. In what shape did you administer the pure strychnia? A. Mixed with food, and forced into the stomach; the alkaloid in a solid state mixed with food, or substance of some kind.

MR. GROVE . Q. I believe you made your experiments in conjunction with Dr. Nunneley? A. I did—my opinion is, that in some of the expe riments I made, the symptoms were as long as an hour in showing them-selves—I have not my notes with me, I speak generally, from my impres-sion—some animals lived several hours—I think in some animals the interval has been an hour, generally it is much earlier—all my experiments were not made in conjunction with Mr. Nunneley; some, especially on frogs, have been apart—frogs are slower in exhibiting the effects—they are cold blooded animals, and differ in certain respects from warm blooded animals, though in other respects the tetanic symptoms are the same—I discovered strychnia by all the tests that I applied, with more or less distinctness—I have in animals detected it where I have searched for it, where I have known it to have been administered—I speak doubtfully as to all cases—in one or two cases I should feel a doubt, but in almost all cases I have discovered it.

COURT . Q. When you examined the body of the animal? A. Yes, after death.

MR. GROVE . Q. I think you said, in one or two you speak doubtfully?

A. In one, certainly; in that case we were sure that strychnia had been administered, our doubt was whether it had reached the stomach—in that case I may say there were appearances which a sanguine eye might say were those of strychnia; a more cautious one would doubt—I did not consider it quite certain in one case—I have detected strychnia in the stomach nearly two months after death, and after decomposition had proceeded to a considerable extent.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. What quantity have you given to the ani mals which you have killed, and afterwards have analyzed the contents of the stomach? A. Quantities varying from under a grain to two or three grains—when I say under a grain, I mean between half a grain and a grain—from that to two grains, to cats, rabbits, dogs—the general dose to dogs is from a grain to two—that is quite sufficient to kill an animal.

Q. How does the strychnia act? is it taken up by the absorbents and carried into the blood? A. I think it acts on the nerves, but a part may be taken into the blood also and act through the blood—I think it acts upon the nerves immediately on it's introduction into the stomach, in part; it is absorbed.

Q. In what parts of these animals did you search to find the strychnia, or the presence of strychnia? A. Generally in the stomach, in one case else where, underneath the skin—in that case we had inoculated the animal—where it was administered internally there I searched the stomach—that which I found in the stomach would be that which was there in excess beyond that which had been absorbed into the system—that which is, absorbed into the system has the operation of poisoning, sufficiently to destroy life—I wish to say, that that is rather my opinion in theory than what I could prove.

COURT . Q. With regard to the excess? A. That remains in the stomach, inactive after death, of course; to be found in the stomach after death.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. That would produce no operation, that which remains in the stomach in excess? A. I am not sure that strychnia may not lie in the stomach, and act prejudicially, without being absorbed; I think it is an open question.

Q. Suppose the minimum quantity administered which, being absorbed into the system, would be capable of operating to the destruction of life; would you expect to find any in the stomach then? A. I should expect sometimes to fail—I think, if death resulted from a series of minute doses of this poison, administered over a space of several days, the appearances would in some degree be likely to be different after death from what they would be supposing death was produced rapidly by one dose; but I should rather connect those appearances with the lengthened and protracted final struggle, I mean the struggle on the last day—I should certainly expect a different set of phenomena on a post mortem examination where the patient died after a brief struggle and where he died after a protracted one—in this case the blood was fluid.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Is it your theory, that in the act of poisoning, the poison is absorbed, and ceases to exist as poison, as strychnia? A. I am inclined to think so—I have thought much upon that question, but have not decided in my mind—I incline to think it is so; I believe a part under goes a chemical change.

COURT . Q. You say that strychnia, when absorbed into the system, under goes a chemical change; is that so? A. I believe part may be absorbed unchanged, a part may undergo a chemical change, and a part may remain in the stomach unaltered.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. What chemical reason can you give for your

opinion that strychnia, after having effected the operation of poisoning, ceases to be strychnia poison in the blood? A. My opinion rests on the general principle, the general fact, that in acting on living bodies organic bodies are generally changed; organic substances acting on the living bodies organic body, such as food or medicine, are frequently changed in composition—I do not know that strychnia, after effecting the operation of poisoning, has been discovered in the blood and liver still in the form of strychnia, but I believe it possible—the component parts of strychnia consist of four elements—I have no fact to show that it can be decomposed by any sort of putrefying or fermentative process, and I doubt if it would.

EDWARD DUKE MOORE . I was formerly in practice as a surgeon—I was attending a person that was suffering from paralysis, with Dr. Chambers, a gentleman of the name of Clutterbuck—it was, I should say, about fifteen years ago—I had been giving him some very small doses of strychnia—he left me, and went to Brighton, and returned from there—when he came back from Brighton, he made a communication to me as to his having taken stronger doses of strychnia—in consequence of that, I gave him a stronger dose than I had done formerly—I made up the medicine myself—I made three draughts, containing a quarter of a grain in each—I gave one to him—he took one—I was there when he took it—he reported that he had taken three-quarters of a grain during the time he was at Brighton, that he had got to that amount—I was not sent for after he had taken one of the draughts; I remained with him some little time—I left him, as he said that he felt quite comfortable—about three-quarters of an hour after I had given him the draught I was summoned to attend him—when I got there, I found him stiffened in every limb—his head was drawn back, and he was screaming violently that we should turn him, move him, and rub him—all his limbs were stiff; the head was drawn back, the spine was drawn back, the head was drawn backwards—we tried to give him some-thing—it was a mixture with ammonia—I gave it him with a spoon—he first snapped at the spoon, with a sort of convulsive effort to take it—he was suffering altogether, I should say, three hours, or even more than that before we left him safe—he lived, he survived the attack—during the whole of the time he was perfectly conscious.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. He recovered? A. Yes—I should say he was about three hours recovering from the first time I saw him—in three hours we left him safe—the effects had entirely gone at the end of three hours; I mean, the spasms had left him, but the rigidity of the muscles continued a considerable time after that, I cannot say how long, during the greater part of the day, and some part of the next—at first his hands were drawn back in this way ( describing it ); when we had got him round, and his hands closed together, he was much easier; the feet were in the same way; after the distortions and the rigidity of his limbs had entirely ceased, he did not retain any bad effects of the attack; on the con trary, as he himself said, he thought his paralysis was better—it was given him for paralysis—he had been taking it for a considerable time.

COURT . Q. Strychnia is given for paralysis? A. Yes, in large quantities, but only in minute doses—persons not afflicted with paralysis would not take it.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. It excites the muscles that want to be stimulated? A. It excites the nerves—there being in paralysis a want of muscular action, you stimulate, by means of strychnia, the nerves which act on the voluntary muscles.

Adjourned.

Monday, May 19 th.

DR. ALFRED SWAINE TAYLOR . I am a fellow of the College of Physicians, and lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital I am the I am the author of a well known treatise on Poisons and on Medical Jurispru-dence—among other poisons, I have made the poison called strychnia the subject of my attention—it is the produce of the nux vomica—there is also in the nux vomica a poison of an analogous nature, called brucia, which differs from it only in point of strength: there are some chemical differences—the whole quantity in nux vomica is considered not to exceed from half to one per cent, of the two alkaloids—in the seed, the strychnia predominates; in the bark, the brucia—the difference between the two poisons, in their relative strength of action on the body, is variously estimated at from one-sixth to one-twelfth; that is to say, brucia being from one sixth to one-twelfth the strength of strychnia—most varieties of impure strychnia which are sold, contain more or less brucia—unless you are certain of the purity of the article, you may be misled as to the strength—I have tried a variety of experiments on animal life with strychnia—I have never wit nessed an instance of it's action on the human subject—I have tried it's effects on animal life, I think, in about ten or twelve instances, always upon rabbits—the symptoms produced by the poison have on the whole been very uniform—I have given quantities varying from a half to two grains and three grains; not less than half a grain—I have found half a grain sufficient to destroy the life of a rabbit—I have given it in a solid state, and some in a liquid state—I have found there was a difference in the time required to show it's effects where I administered it in the liquid and where I adminis tered it in the solid form—when given in a fluid state it has produced it's effects in a very few minutes, two or three minutes; and in the solid state, in the form of pill or bolus, from about six to eleven minutes, I think—I have found that the time was influenced by the strength of the dose—it is influenced by the strength of the dose, and also by the strength of the animal.

Q. In what way, in your opinion, does the poison operate to produce it's symptoms? A. It is first absorbed into the blood; it is then circulated through the body, and it especially acts on the spinal cord—that is the part of the body from which the nerves affecting the voluntary muscles proceed.

Q. Suppose absorption of the poison into the blood to have taken place, what time would be required for the circulating process which would bring the matter taken up into contact with the nerves of the spinal cord? A. The entire circulation through the whole system is considered to take place about once in four minutes.

COURT . Q. Are you speaking of the human subject? A. Yes—the circulation in the rabbit is quicker.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. How is it as to the absorption? would that be quicker in a rabbit? A. I think it would, from the effects produced—that will also depend on the state of the stomach, as to whether there be much food in the stomach, and as to whether the poison comes in imme diate contact with the inner surface of the stomach.

Q. In your opinion, does the poison act immediately on the nervous system while in the stomach, or any portion of it, or must it first be absorbed? A. It must first, I believe, be absorbed.

Q. You stated some little time ago, that the symptoms produced by the administration of this poison, where you have given it yourself, have been.

tolerably uniform; will you describe the series of symptoms from the com mencement to the close? A. The animal for about five or six minutes does not appear to suffer; it moves about freely and actively; it then, when the poison begins to act, suddenly falls on it's side; there is a trembling of the whole muscles of the body; a sort of quivering motion, arising from the poison producing these violent and involuntary contractions; there is then a sudden paroxysm or fit; the fore legs are stretched out, and the hind legs are stretched out; the head is drawn back, and the tail, so as to give it the form of a bow; the jaws are spasmodically closed, and the eyes are pro minent, protruding—after a short time there is a slight remission of the symptoms—the animal appears to lie quiet, but the slightest noise or touch produces another convulsive paroxysm—there is sometimes a scream, or sort of shriek, as if the animal suffered severe pain—the heart beats very violently during the fit, and after a succession of these fits, the animal dies quietly—I have observed immediately prior to death, that there is a remission of the paroxysm, not uniformly—I have only known it has died by having the hand over the heart, but it has been in a state of spasm at that time—in one or two cases the animal has died quietly, as if there was a remission—sometimes it dies apparently during the spasm itself.

Q. What appearances have you observed after death, externally, which would be different from the ordinary appearances of a person who has died; are the muscles more than usually rigid? A. In some instances the animal has been rigid throughout, that is to say, it has died in a spasm, and the rigidity has continued; the muscles so strongly contracted, that for a week afterwards it was possible to hold the animal extended by the hind legs without the body falling—I took hold of it by it's hind legs, and the body kept straight out, horizontally—I have found that continue as long as a week—in an animal killed the other day the body was flexible at the time of death, but it became rigid in about five minutes after death—I have not seen it since—I have opened the bodies of animals that have been thus destroyed—I have not found any appearances in the stomach or intestines which would indicate any injury there—I have found in one or two cases congestion of the vessels of the membranes of the spinal cord, more than was due to the gravitation of the blood after death—in other cases I have not found any departure from the ordinary state, with respect to the spinal cord, and with respect to the brain; I may include both.

COURT . Q. With regard to the brain, have you in any case found a departure from health? A. In one or two cases, the membranes of the spinal cord and brain were congested; in other cases, quite healthy.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Those membranes are a continuation one of the other? A. They are; so that it is not easy to have congestion of one without congestion of the other—the congestion of these membranes where I found it to exist, I think, has been due to the succession of fits which the animal has had before death—in the majority of instances I have failed to discover any abnormal condition of the spinal cord or brain: in three out of five I found no change.

COURT . Q. No abnormal appearance? A. No abnormal appearance.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. As to the heart of animals thus killed, what have you observed with reference to that? A. In all that I have observed, the heart has been congested with blood.

COURT . Q. Both sides of the heart? A. The right side especially.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Have you ever seen a case of ordinary tetanus in the human subject? A. I have, but years ago—I have not had

much experience in that—I have never Been it in animals—I saw one last Thursday week in the human subject—that was from an injury to the finger, in St. Thomas's Hospital—that did not end fatally, the person is recovering—I have heard the description given by Elizabeth Mills, and by Mr. Jones, of the symptoms which accompanied the attack of Mr. Cook—those symptoms, as described, appear to me similar to those I have seen in animals to which I have administered strychnia—the period it usually took in rabbits, from the first manifestation of the symptoms to death, was about ten minutes—it varied to ten minutes; ten minutes, I think, was the longest where the strychnia was given in a state of solid—I am speaking of the time from the administration of the strychnia to the commencement of the symptoms.

Q. How long does it take from the time the first symptoms manifest themselves to the time of the death? A. They have died in various periods; one died in thirteen minutes, one in seventeen minutes; that I should mention would be the whole time—the symptoms appear more rapidly when the poison is given in a fluid state, and death has taken place in five or six minutes after—death takes place more rapidly when it is given in the fluid state—the poison operates more rapidly in it's commencement and in it's course when fluid—the experiments which I have particularly noticed and performed lately, and which I am about to detail, have been entirely in reference to solid strychnia—in the first the symptoms began in seven minutes, and the animal died in thirteen minutes, including those seven minutes from the time the poison was given; in the second, the symptoms, appeared in nine minutes, the animal died in seventeen; in the third, the symptoms appeared in ten minutes, the animal died in eighteen minutes; in the fourth, the symptoms appeared in nine minutes, and the death took place in twenty-two minutes; in the fifth, the symptoms appeared in twelve minutes, and the death took place in twenty-three minutes—supposing this poison to be administered to the human subject in the shape of pills, I should expect it would take a longer period before the poison began to act, because it requires that the pill structure should be broken up in order to bring the poison in contact with the mucous membrane of the stomach—in the case of the rabbits which I destroyed by the solid poison, I administered it in pills.

Q. What I am asking you is this: Given that the poison is administered in both cases to the rabbit and the human subject in the shape of pills; should you expect a longer period before it began to act in the human sub ject than in the rabbit? A. I do not think we can fairly draw any inference between the relative rapidity of death from strychnia in the rabbit and in the human subject, the circulation and absorption are very different—it is very probable that there would also be a difference between one human subject and another with reference to the power of the absorbents, to take a poison up with more or less rapidity.

COURT . Q. Would it depend on the difference of the substance of which the pills are composed? A. Yes, and it's coming in contact with the stomach early or late.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Would the strength of the dose make any difference? A. It would; that is to say, a large dose would produce a more rapid effect than a small dose—I have experimented upon the intestines of animals that I have thus killed, to reproduce the strychnia or to discover it.

Q. What, in your opinion, would be the correct chemical course to pursue, in order to reproduce the strychnia from the contents of the stomach? A.

The principle of extracting it consists in putting the stomach and it's con tents in alcohol mixed with a small quantity of acid to dissolve the strychnia—supposing I took sulphuric acid, for instance, I should thus get sulphate of strychnia, if there should be any strychnia in the body.

COURT . Q. If there be any discoverable? A. Exactly so—the use of the alcohol is to dissolve it.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Having got the sulphate of strychnia, how would you next proceed? A. The liquid is filtered, gently evaporated, and an alkali added; you get rid of the alcohol in that way—carbonate of potash is the alkali some prefer, which I have used—that precipitates the strychnia—it combines with the sulphuric acid in the sulphate of strychnia, and so precipitates the strychnia, if present—besides this mode of getting at the strychnia itself, if there be strychnia present in the stomach, there are tests applied to the strychnia or supposed strychnia when extracted—strychnia has a peculiar taste, a strongly bitter taste—it is insoluble or nearly inso luble in water—it is soluble in acids and in alcohol—it is precipitated by alkalies, when it has been dissolved in an acid—colour tests are applied to the dry residue, after evaporation.

Q. What substances are there which, when applied in this way, will pro duce a change of colour? A. A mixture of strong sulphuric acid and bi-chromate of potash produces a blue colour, changing through a violet to a purple, and passing to a red tint—I think these colour tests are very falla cious, with this exception, that when we have strychnia separated in a crys talline state, when we have recognised the crystals by their form and their chemical properties, and, above all, where they produce, or the substance produces, tetanic symptoms and death, when introduced into a wound in the skin of an animal—you may introduce the poison into the system and produce all it's effects by introducing it through any puncture or wound in the skin as well as by introducing it into the stomach, and it operates more quickly in that case—absorption takes place—it is carried at once into the circulation.

Q. Are there, in your opinion, other vegetable matters to which, if these colouring tests were applied, similar results as to colour might be obtained? A. There are a variety of substances—a mixture of sugar and bile will pro duce the purple and red tint, and a substance called pyroxanthine—that sub stance is a product of the distillation of wood—it produces precisely similar colours to those caused by strychnia, so that I have known persons deceived—in my laboratory, in performing the experiments, they have said, "You have got strychnia there," when it has been a mixture of pyroxanthine with a small quantity of salicine added to it; that is, the principle of the willow bark—allow me to state, in addition, that the mixture which I have just mentioned contains no strychnia, and has a bitter taste, so that it might be mistaken for strychnia by taste as well as by colour—vegetable poisons are more difficult of detection by chemical processes than mineral ones, and the tests are more fallacious—I have, in the case of animals that I have destroyed by strychnia, endeavoured afterwards to discover it's presence—I have tried to do so in four distinct cases—I was assisted by Dr. Rees, he was in conjunction with me—that was at Guy's Hospital—we applied the process that I have first described; that is, we endeavoured to reproduce the strychnia, if present, and then applied to it those colouring tests which I have mentioned just now—that is the course we pursued, and also by the effects of taste.

Q. Were you able in those instances to satisfy yourself of the presence of

strychnia? A. In one case by the colour tests; in another case there was a bitter taste in the liquid, but no indication of strychnia by the colour tests—in the other two cases there was no indication whatever of the presence of strychnia—the dose given, in the case in which we discovered by the taste and by the colour that there was strychnia, was two grains at intervals—that is in the first case I mentioned, where it was discovered by the colour tests—in the case where we had a bitter taste, but no indication by the colour tests, we gave one grain of strychnia—in the two instances in which we failed to indicate any presence of strychnia, one grain in one case, and half a grain in the remaining one.

Q. How do you account physiologically for the absence of any indication of strychnia where you know strychnia to have been given, and to have caused death? A. By its absorption into the blood, so that it is no longer present in the stomach—it is in a great part, too, changed in the blood; it undergoes a chemical change—I account in the case of the larger dose for the presence of strychnia, because there would be a retention of some not absorbed—that would be in excess beyond what was required for the destruction of life—supposing the minimum of the dose required to destroy life to be given, I do not think I should find any; it would be removed by absorption, and no longer discoverable in the stomach—the smallest quantity I have ever tried on a rabbit has been half a grain—there are no chemical means that I am acquainted with whereby the presence of this poison can be detected in the tissues—there is no process that I am acquainted with; when it is in the small quantity in which it exists there, so far as I know, it cannot—half a grain has destroyed life.

Q. Suppose the half grain to be absorbed entirely into the blood, what proportion does that bear to the total quantity of the blood circulating in the system? A. Assuming the quantity of blood to be at the lowest 25lbs. (I am speaking now of the human subject), that would be one fiftieth part; that is to say, one fiftieth of a grain in a pound—a physician in Canada died from that dose in twenty minutes; from half a grain—in addition, to this distribution of the half grain over the whole system, I believe it partially undergoes some change in the blood—that would increase the difficulty of detecting it in the tissues—I have never heard of it's being separated in a crystallized state from the tissues—the crystals are peculiar in form—they present themselves under the form of octohedral and quadrilateral prisms terminated by four-sided pyramids—sometimes the prism is wanting, and then the two are close together, to form the octohedron—there are other organic substances which crystallise something like them, so that a chemist would not rely on the crystallised form.

Q. I believe that after the post mortem examination had been held on the body of the deceased Mr. Cook, some portion was sent up to you. A. It was—it was delivered to me by Mr. Boycott, in a brown stone jar—the jar was fastened down, covered with bladder, tied, and sealed—it contained the stomach and the intestines of John Parsons Cook—I experimented upon that with a view to ascertain if there were any poison present—we sought for various poisons: prussic acid, oxalic acid, morphia, strychnia, veratria (the poison of white hellebore), the poisons of tobacco, hemlock, arsenic, mercury, antimony, and other mineral poisons generally—we only found small traces of antimony—with reference to the search for strychnia, the part which I had to operate upon was in the most unfavourable condition that could possibly be for finding that poison, if it had been there—the stomach had been completely cut from end to end—all the

contents were gone, and the fine mucous surface, on which any poison, if present, would be found, was lying in contact with the outside of the intestines, all thrown together—there was some feculent matter present also, on the surface of the mucous membrane, derived from the intestines, the contents of which had partly escaped—the inside of the stomach had been turned into this mass of intestine and feculent matter; at any rate, it was lying so—I presume that was the fault, or misfortune, of the person who had dissected it, but in journeying up to London it must have been shaken about in every possible way.

Q. And though there were the contents of the intestines, the contents of the stomach were not there; they were gone? A. They were gone—if there had been any of this poison present, I should have expected to have found it in the contents of the stomach and on the mucous membrane—at my request, other portions of the body were afterwards sent up to me to be experimented upon, the liver, the spleen, and the two kidneys—in addition to that, a small bottle of blood, unlabelled; that is to say, giving us no idea whence it was taken—that was delivered to me by Mr. Boycott—we analysed all those portions—in the liver and kidneys we searched for mineral poison—we discovered antimony in an eighth part of the liver—we analysed only the left kidney, and the spleen, and they all yielded antimony—there were traces of antimony in each—the quantity was less in proportion in the spleen than in the other parts—the blood contained antimony—the antimony was reproduced, or brought out, by boiling the animal substance in a mixture of hydrochloric acid and water, copper in the state of foil and gauze, a sort of web of fine woven copper was intro duced while boiling, and the antimony was deposited on the copper—having got it on the copper we applied various tests to it, the known and established tests for that purpose—the experiments have been performed lately in the presence of Professor Brande—the copper acquired a violet tint, a deposit which is one characteristic of antimony—we applied the well known chemical tests for the detection of antimony, so that I had no doubt of its presence—Dr. Rees assisted me in the analysis—Professor Brande has seen it subsequently—there is a small quantity of antimony still remaining on the copper ( producing it )—I detected some of it in the blood, in the small bottle.

Q. Would the fact of it's being found in the blood enable you to form any opinion as to how shortly before death the antimony had been given? A. It is impossible to say with any precision, but I should think shortly before death; that is to say, within some days—the longest period known at which antimony has been found in the blood, after a person has ceased to take it, was eight days—within my own knowledge, the earliest period at which antimony, taken into the stomach, would get into the blood, has been eighteen hours; the analysis was made of the liver in that case: the boy died eighteen hours after taking a dose of antimony, and then I found it in the liver—it was not a very large dose; that was not the cause of death—it was a medicinal dose prescribed for him; about six grains of antimonial powder—antimony is usually given in the form of tartar emetic, and acts as an irritant, to produce, and produces vomiting—if it be given in repeated doses, a portion of it, beyond what is ejected by the stomach, will find it's way into the blood, and into the system—if given in con tinued doses of that description, it would destroy life, if it produced certain symptoms—it may be given in frequent doses with impunity, and it may be given so as to produce symptoms which will infallibly destroy life, if continued—I heard the account given by the female servant, Mills, of

the frequent vomiting of Mr. Cook—I also heard the account given of his vomiting at Shrewsbury—I also heard the account given by the medical men, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Jones, and Mr. Bamford's deposition as to the concomitant symptoms—in my opinion, the vomiting I heard described would be such as might be produced by antimony—tartar emetic is soluble in water; it does not affect the colour of any fluid in which it is mixed in small quantities—I do not think that such a quantity as would suffice to produce vomiting would affect the colour of the fluid with which it was mixed—it would not affect the colour of broth, brandy and water, wine, or toast and water.

Q. From these traces of the antimony in those parts of the body to which you have referred, could you form any judgment as to the time when the antimony was taken? A. It is impossible to say with any precision, but I should say within two or three weeks at the outside; within three weeks I should think—I mean before death, I think so—we did not find any perceptible quantity dissolved in the fluids of the bowels and the washings of the stomach, therefore I should infer there was no evidence of any given within some hours of death—I know by experiment it takes a shorter time to get to the liver.

COURT . Q. Might that which you found in the liver, kidneys, and spleen have been administered within a few days before death? A. Yes, I think that which I found in the liver might have been administered within eighteen hours of death, or within a few days.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. I asked you about the colour, but I omitted to ask you about the taste; does antimony affect the taste of any fluid in which it is given? A. No, not in quantities in which it would cause vomiting—if a person tossed off A quantity of fluid with which there was this substance mixed, it might, according to the quantity present, leave a sensation in the throat—a large quantity taken at once, might leave a choking or constricting sensation, as if the throat were contracted—in the various analyses that I made, I found no trace of mercury—if mercury had been recently taken, I should have found it, according to the quantity taken—if a few grains had been taken recently before death, I should have expected to find some trace in the liver—if a man had been taking mercury for any syphilitic affection within anything like a recent period before death, I should have expected to have found it traceable—it is very slow in passing out of the body, so that if given within two or three weeks from death there would be some traces in the liver, or if given within a few hours from death, there might be some in the liver.

Q. What quantity given shortly before death would you expect to find appreciably, in the liver from post mortem examination? A. I think an amount of three grains, three or four grains might thus leave some trace; but it is impossible to give any precise answer to that—I have a recollection of a case of three grains of calomel having been given twenty-four hours before death, and I found mercury in the liver—that is the only fact I can give an opinion upon—supposing half a grain given each day for four days before death, and to be given favourably, not thrown off the stomach by vomiting, I should expect to find some trace of it; if one grain each day for four days, I certainly should expect to find some traces in the liver, or four grains taken in the period of four days, and in divided doses more favourable for absorption—I attended to the evidence which was given as to the deaths of Mrs. Smith and of Agnes French, and of the lady referred to at Leeds, and the case of the gentleman of whom Mr. Moore spoke—judging by the results of my own studies and experiments with reference to death by

strychnia, I coincide in opinion that those deaths were occasioned by strychnia—the symptoms of Mr. Cook's case appear to me to be of a similar character with those of the cases that I have been just referring to—I know of no other cause in the nature of human diseases to which the symptoms of Mr. Cook's death can be referred, except to strychnia.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. In the course of your examination, while speaking of antimony, you have frequently used the word "trace" of antimony? A. Traces—a very small quantity which one can hardly estimate by weighing, we call a trace—"trace" in ordinary par lance means a small quantity—I do not imply it to mean an imponderable quantity—it is frequently so used in chemical language—some chemists mean that by it—centesimal, millesimal, infinitesimal quantity would be called a trace—I have heard an imperceptible quantity called a trace—I do not use it in my examination in that sense—I mean we obtained antimony in small quantities from many parts, but that the antimony so collected would make up a ponderable quantity in the whole—this is a very small residue of what we obtained—what we discovered altogether in all the parts of the body we examined would make up about half a grain, as we thought—we did not actually ascertain it to amount to half a grain—I do not think a quarter of a grain would explain the quantity we obtained—I will undertake to say there was half a grain, to the best of my judgment—there was more in the parts of the body examined, but we extracted that quantity—it was antimony—that would not be sufficient to cause death—one of the animal substances in which the antimony was found was blood—I have described the tests used—I said we applied the usual tests.

Q. I ask you what those tests were? A. Under the circumstances, only arsenic or antimony could be deposited on the copper, then we applied heat to the deposit on the copper, no sublimate of arsenic was obtained—we cut up some of the gauze containing the deposit—we heated it with nitrate of soda in a platina crucible—that converted the antimony to antimoniate of soda—that was dissolved, or rather diffused, in water containing a little hydro-chloric acid, precipitated by sulphureted hydrogen, and a precipitate after twenty-four hours was deposited—it had a reddish-brown colour, like sulphuret of antimony, and like it was soluble in strong hydrochloric acid—then there were, in addition, two other processes; one part of the acid solu tion of Mr. Cook's stomach was placed in a glass, and a piece of metallic tin immersed in the acid solution—there was a black deposit on that tin indicative of antimony—some of the same acid solution was placed in contact with pure zinc—there was also a black deposit on the zinc, and when the whole was dissolved in nitro-hydrochloric acid, the black precipitate was converted into antimonic acid, peroxide of antimony—I have no doubt whatever, from thirteen years' practice on these tests and processes, that it was antimony—the failure or inaccuracy of one step in that long process, or the badness of the quality of one of the materials used, might affect the result, but I used pure materials—such an accident could not take place without my having intimation of it in the course of the process—in my opinion, the antimony that I discovered must have been taken within three weeks—it may have been taken within that period—that opinion is formed on the observation of the rapidity with which antimony gets out of the body, not so much in animals as in men—I have not tried these experiments on animals—I should think it would probably get out more quickly in animals than in men—I am acquainted with the works of Orfila—he was in the highest rank of analytical chemists—he is dead.

Q. Would you have any doubt, if you found in his work that it was found

in a dog four months after the ingestion? A. Just be so good as to read the quantity taken.

Q. The quantity is a French quantity, but I will read it. A. I know the quantity—the animal took about forty-five grains, and I have not said anything of that sort about Cook.

Q. "A dog who for four entire months had taken no emetic, having taken three grammes in ten days" (which is about forty-five grains in ten days), "but who had not taken any for four entire months, the metal was found accumulated in the bones; the liver contained also a great deal, and the other tissues but very little." A. Will you pass the book to me?—there is no question about the fact, that when antimony has been long in the body it passes into the bones—I have said nothing about Cook's bones—there may have been some in the liver, because it remains a long time in that organ—but we found it in Cook's case in the spleen and the kidneys, besides, I do not think you are reading Orfila's experiments; they are not Orfila's experiments, Orfila is quoting the experiments of another person; you have put it on the character of Orfila—that is not the case with every single instance in my book—what I wish to say is, you are quoting experiments which were not performed by Orfila.

Q. I do not say that they were, but I find it in his book; I read this to you out of his book: "A dog was killed three and a half months after all antimonial administration to him had ceased; he had taken three grammes" (which is forty-five grains) "of emetic in ten days." A. Where was the antimony found?

Q. That is what I meant: "Antimony was found condensed principally dans le gras "? A. In the fat.

Q. So I thought—"It was found condensed in the fat; the liver con-tained some of it, also the bones and the other tissues; but fifty grammes of it furnished as much as 500 grammes of the rest of the other tissues put together." A. That shows, after antimony has been four months in the body, it goes out of the liver, kidneys, and splaen, and gets into the bones and fat.

Q. I do not see how it shows that it gets out of the liver, because he writes, "The liver contained some of it as well as the bones." A. Let us have it quite fairly; if you read the last part about the proportion contained in all the tissues, compared with what was contained in the fat, you will see what an enormous difference it makes.

Q. I see that; but still, it does not affect what I called your attention top that after three and a half months the liver contained some of it. A. Some of it, and allow me to tell you this, that forty-five grains given to a human being over ten days in food, is not a case which I am at all supposed to give an opinion upon—I have never heard of such a case—in the instance read first, it was after four months—the last one, "The metal had accumulated in the bones; the liver also contained a great deal, the other tissues very little," I think proves clearly this: if any person was to take forty-five grains of antimony over a period of eight or ten days, possibly some might be found in the liver after four months—everything must depend on the dose and the mode of giving it—it does not require such a pretty good dose to poison people as you think—it depends on the mode of giving it more than the dose—a dog has been poisoned by sue grains given in a certain way, but you have not mentioned that two of the dogs died in that case from the effects of the antimony—there are two cases of dogs that died from it.

Q. There is one just above; a dog fed ten days with aliments mixed with emetic, three grammes, that is, forty-five grains in the whole, died six days

after they had ceased to give him that aliment? A. Yes—when antimony has been given in that way to animals for some time, it generally affects the liver—the gentlemen whose experiments you are quoting have found that the liver became fatty and brittle—Cook's liver presented nothing of the sort, therefore I should infer, from the absence of any change in the liver, the diffusion of antimony through the kidneys, the spleen, liver, stomach, and intestines (there is nothing mentioned about any being found in the stomach and the dog, in the case you mentioned of a long duration), I should infer that the antimony in Mr. Cook's body had been much more recent than those experiments would show, but I cannot decide positively when anti mony gets out of the body; no doubt it differs in different persons—the best opinion I can give is, that this was within two or three weeks of his death—I had to analyze the body of a man who had taken twenty-three grains twenty-four hours before death, and it had all passed out of him—in four months it gets into the fat and bones, but you do not find it in the stomach and bowels—I do not form my opinion from one fact, but from all—I was first applied to to investigate this case on Tuesday, 27th Nov., by Mr. Stevens, introduced by Mr. Warrington, Professor of Chemistry at Apothecaries' Hall—he did not put me in communication with any solicitor on that occasion, I do not think he mentioned it—I am not sure whether it was on that day, or subsequently, that he mentioned Mr. Gardner's name—I had not known Mr. Gardner before—I had not been at all concerned in any recent cases at Eugeley before that—afterwards, Mr. Stevens came with the jar—Mr. Boycott and he came together.

Q. You wrote a letter on the subject; and is this a passage from it, "We do not find strychnia"? A. Head it all, if you pleaae. ( LORD CAMPBELL . was of opinion that the whole letter should be read. )

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . I will read it all to you then. It is in reply to a letter received from Mr. Gardner.—"Dr. Rees and I have completed the analysis to-day. We have sketched a report, which will be ready to morrow or next day. As I am going to Durham assizes on the part of the Crown, in the case of Reg. v. Wooler, the report will be in the hands of Dr. Bees, No. 26, Albemarle-street. It will be most desirable that Mr. Stevens should call on Dr. Bees, read the report with him, and put such questions as may occur. In reply to your letter received here this morning, I beg to say that we wish a statement of all the medicines prescribed for deceased (until his death) to be drawn up and sent to Dr. Bees. We do not find strychnia, prussic acid, or any trace of opium. From the contents having been drained away, it is now impossible to say whether any strychnia had or had not been given just before death, but it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life if given in repeated doses; and, so far as we can at present form an opinion, in the absence of any natural cause of death, the deceased may have died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form"—was that your opinion at the time? A. It was—that was all we could infer from the chemical analysis—I have told you to day that the quantity of antimony that we found in Cook's body was not sufficient to account for death, but what was found in Cook's body was not all that he took: I wish to add to my testimony, because I see it is only a little misunderstanding; if a man takes antimony it produces this effect; first, he vomits, by which some passes out of the body; some may escape by the bowels; there is a great deal that passes at once into the blood by absorption, and is carried out with the urine: I find by Orfila, whom we are all inclined to rely upon, that, in from four to seventeen

hours, antimony is found chiefly in the urine—I mean to say, perfectly and distinctly, from such traces as I found in Cook's body of antimony, I was justified in stating my opinion that his death may have been caused by antimony—the amount found in a dead body is not the slightest criterion of what has been swallowed—I have sometimes found less arsenic in a body than would account for death.

Q. But if the amount found is not the slightest criterion of what may have been administered, how does that justify you, as an analytical chemist, in stating your opinion that so small a quantify may have caused death? A. I have not said what quantity would cause death—I have said a certain quantity was found in the body, which may have been the residue of what had caused death—I will explain it to you, I see the point you are working at; we found antimony in this body, and we could not account for it's being there; I wrote to know whether antimony had been given as a medicine, and I considered that at people had died from antimony, it was necessary to have information of the symptoms connected with this man's death, which I knew nothing about at the time; finding antimony there, and no explanation, I put it as possible and the only hypothesis to account for death.

Q. At the time you wrote this, that in your opinion the man had died from the effects of antimony, had you any reason to think any undue quantity had been administered to him? A. I could not speculate on that from the quantity there, for I did not know at all what quantity he had taken, or whether it had been prescribed medicinally—the opinion was based upon this, that antimony was the cause of death, many people will die from small and some from larger quantities—the quantity found in the body is no criterion of what is taken.

Q. May not the injudicious use of quack medicines containing antimony, such as James's powders or other medicines, have accounted for as much antimony as you found in the body of Mr. Cook? A. Any antimonial preparation would account for it—an injudicious use of James's powder, or even the judicious use, might do so.

Q. And do you mean to say, with that knowledge, consulted by a gentleman who appeared to entertain suspicions, that you felt yourself authorised in giving an opinion that this man died from the poison of antimony? A. You are perverting my meaning entirely, I must really say; what I said in my conclusion was this, that antimony under the form of tartar emetic may occasion nausea, vomiting and other symptoms of irri-tation, and that in large doses it has caused death, preceded by convul sions: then, that antimony and tartar emetic may be given as a safe and innocent medicine, which answers your question about it's being used as a poison; this is my report—I do not see you are justified in making use of a private letter to a solicitor—I sent in a report, if you will read it to me again, I will give you any explanation.

Q. If I have misunderstood the last passage of the letter, I will read it again: "We do not find strychnia, prussic acid, or any trace of opium; from the contents having been drained away, it is impossible to say whether any strychnia had or had not been given just before death; but it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life, if given in repeated doses; so far as we can at present form an opinion, in the absence of any natural cause of death, the deceased may hare died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form." A. Yes; Mr. Stevens had told us he was in very good health about seven or eight days before his death—there was a letter

previous to this, to which that was an answer—Mr. Stevens told us his step son was in very good health at Shrewsbury races, that he was taken very sick there, that he was ill for six or eight days, and died suddenly in convulsions, without any further particulars: we were led to suppose he had not died a natural death—there was no natural cause to account for death, and, finding that antimony existed throughout the body, we drew the conclusion that that was a possible cause of death.

Q. Then, when you are consulted as an analytical chemist, do you enlighten your judgment by all the hearsay statements that the person consulting you chooses to make? A. I do not enlighten my judgment by it—I endeavour to procure the information necessary for an analysis—the analysis cannot be made quite as effectually without any information at all—the chances are that poison would be often lost; there are a hundred poisons that may destroy people—I do not think it neces sary, before I make an analysis, to have a long statement of the symptoms before death—a short statement will do—I rely upon no statement at all, I just check the result by the statement and the statement by the result—I do not allow my judgment to be influenced by the statement of a person who knows nothing of his own knowledge, not in the least degree—I do not allow my judgment to be influenced in any way on such a matter—what Mr. Stevens told me assisted me in arriving at the conclusion which I stated in writing to Mr. Gardner as a possible case, not as a certain case—I say, "As far as we can at present form an opinion in the absence of any cause of death, the deceased may have died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form," that is correct.

Q. Now, is this correct, at page 491 of the first edition of your book on "Poison:" "Medical jurists must remember that the discovery of tartar emetic in the contents of a stomach is by no means a proof of it's having been taken or administered as a poison, since it is frequently prescribed as a medicine, and often taken as such by persons of their own accord; we can only infer it existed as a poison or caused death when the quantity present was very large, and there were corresponding appearances of irritation in the alimentary canal; still less would the discovery of it in a mixture, unless in a very large proportion, be evidence of an intent to poison"? A. That means, if we had found a very large quantity in the stomach or bowels, we should have come to the conclusion that the man had died from it; but finding only a small quantity throughout the body, we say, he may have died from it.

Q. Look at your first page; is this right? after the definition of a poison, you say, "It would, if admitted, exclude a very large class of substances, the poisonous properties of which cannot be disputed; as, for example, salts of lead, copper, tin, zinc, and antimony, which are only poisonous when administered in very large doses"? A. Yes; in the ordinary way; but if you spread that large dose over a long period, you will equally kill the person—in the case of those dogs which you read to me, they took forty-five grains over ten days, and they were killed by the doses—they took only four and a half grains a day—I attended at the coroner's inquest on the body of Mr. Cook—I think I was first there on the 14th of December, as nearly as I can remember—some of the evidence was read over to me—Dr. Harland was the first witness examined when I was there, I think, but I am not quite sure—the post mortem examination was gone into first—I heard Mr. Bamford examined—I think I heard Lavinia Barnes and Elizabeth Mills—I am not quite sure about Newton—I heard Jones.

Q. Will you tell me, before you went to that inquest, how many of those ten rabbits that you spoke of you had experimented upon? A. I had experi mented some years ago upon five, and experimented on those connected with the analysis with the poison given in a solid state since the inquest—the first five was when I first began to lecture on medical jurisprudence, that is twenty-three years ago—that was the only knowledge of the effects of strychnia poison on animal life which I had when I wrote that book—I have a great objection to destroying life except from absolute necessity—it may be that that great necessity arises when it is for the purpose of saving human life and detecting crime, but every toxicologist cannot sacrifice one hundred rabbits when the facts are well ascertained from other sources; I did not feel myself justified in going on on points which I knew were well established in the profession—I experimented on the last rabbits since the inquest.

Q. Do not you think it is rather rash to judge of the effects of strychnia poison on man, by so small an experience as that of ten animals of a parti cular species? A. I think you must add to experimental experience some thing like a study of poisons for twenty-five years; that is, study on the relations of others, and the collection of cases—I do not think a rabbit is a very unfair animal to select.

Q. Would not a dog be much better? A. Dogs are very dangerous to handle, I have a very great disinclination to meddle with them—I know that dogs and cats are considered to bear a greater analogy to the human being for this reason, that they readily vomit, while rabbits do not vomit; now a rabbit is a much more manageable animal, and I have not pretended to settle either the time of death or the quantity that will destroy life in a rabbit, I merely pretend to determine the physiological effects—from the experiments I have tried on dogs and cats, I have had no inclination to go further—I do not admit that they would be better to experiment upon, parti cularly as to the action of the respiratory functions, than a rabbit, nor as to the effects of poisoning—I think the rabbit is quite as good as any animal that can be selected, the poison is retained and shows it's operation—Mr. Gard ner was at the inquest—the first time I saw him was in the inquest room—I suggested questions to the Coroner, personally addressing him—he put them, or they were answered by the witnesses on my merely addressing him—I do not remember whether Mr. Jones and Mills were examined, before Ro berts—I think Roberts was examined afterwards—I really cannot tell the order in which the witnesses were examined, the only evidence I particularly attended to was the medical evidence, and the statements of Mills and Barnes—I do not think I heard Roberts say, before I gave my opinion, that the prisoner had bought strychnia in his shop on the Tuesday—Roberts was examined after me, but I knew strychnia was bought before we sent in our report—it was in Mr. Gardner's letter, to which that was a reply which you read—Mr. Gardner gave the information in that letter, I do not know whether it has been produced, that strychnia, prussic acid, and Battley's sedative of opium, had been bought by the prisoner—that was before the report was signed—I mean bought on the Tuesday, and that led to my putting into the letter which you read, that no trace of strychnia, prussic acid, or morphia had been found—that was in answer to the inquiry—it was ten days before the inquest that I knew it—it was with that knowledge, and after hearing the evidence of Mills and Jones, that I gave my opinion—I did not associate that knowledge at all with the facts and symptoms—we signed the report after we knew strychnia had been bought—we did not allow it to

influence our judgments in the smallest degree—( At the request of Mr. Serjeant Shee, the deposition of Dr. Taylor before the Coroner was here read, as follows : "Alfred Swaine Taylor, sworn, saith, I am a Fellow of the College of Phy sicians and Lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital, London—I received a jar from Mr. Boycott on Tuesday, the 27th Nov., at the laboratory of Guy's Hospital—I found the jar contained the stomach and intestines of the deceased—the stomach had been cut open, the contents had drained away, and it was lying on the surface of the intestines—the surface of the stomach was first carefully ex amined by a magnifying glass by Dr. Bees and myself—there was a brownish coloured, bilious liquid adhering to the surface of the lining membrane—there was no appearance of ulceration, perforation, or other disease—the lining membrane was generally reddened, and this redness was very strongly marked at the lesser end of the stomach—there was no ap pearance of effused blood, or mineral or vegetable matter, on the surface of the stomach—there was no smell of opium, prussic acid, or spirits—the only odour perceptible was that of feculent matter, in consequence of the stomach having been in contact with the intestines—the large and small intestines were examined throughout—they presented slight patches of redness, both on the outside and inside, at different parts—the small intestines contained a yellowish coloured fluid, chiefly consisting of bile and mucus—the contents of the intestines, after being cut open, were removed, and allowed to stand in a dean glass vessel twenty-four hours, the sediment was examined and found to contain no mineral or vegetable matter, or any other suspicions matter—there was no blood mixed with or contained in the intestines—on Saturday, Dec. 1st, I received from Mr. Boycott another jar containing the liver, kidneys, and spleen of the body of the deceased—the liver, kidneys, and spleen were all healthy in their structure, nothing to account for disease or death—the left kidney was rather less in size than the right, but the structure was healthy—there was nothing in the stomach or intestines to indicate the cause of death—the first analysis was made of the mucus and bilious looking liquid on the surface of the stomach—it was tested for all the poisons which would cause sudden death, including prussic and oxalic acids, morphia, opium, strychnia, veratria, nicotina (poison of tobacco), conia (poison of hemlock), as well as for mercury, antimony, and the other metallic poisons—the result of the most minute examination by Dr. Kees and myself conjointly was, that there was only a slight trace of antimony in the parts examined, and there was no trace of any other substance—the coats of the stomach were examined, and there wan only a small portion of antimony in them—the coats of the intestines and the contents of the intestines were similarly tested, and we found only antimony in both—about one eighth part of the liver, spleen, and kidneys were examined, and we found only antimony—there was no trace of any other substance—the drainiugs of the jar were also examined, and were found to contain a larger portion of antimony than the other parts—they were especially examined for morphia and strychnia, but no traces were discovered of either—there was a bottle contained in the second jar containing a bloody liquid—this was analysed and contained anti-mony—the conclusions drawn from the investigations were these—that first, antimony derived from some antimonial preparation and taken during life was present in the body of the deceased—secondly, that antimony had beenabsorbed, carried into the blood, and deposited in the various parts in which it was found—thirdly, that the quantity found was small, and might be the residue of a large dose or of various small doses taken some hours or days before death—fourthly,

that the quantity taken by the deceased cannot be inferred from the small quantity found in the body, or from the appearances presented by the stomach and intestines—fifthly, that antimony, under the form of tartar emetic, may produce nausea, violent vomiting, purging, and other symptoms of irritation of the stomach and bowels—there is also another symptom pro duced by mercury, arsenic, and antimony—that is constriction of the throat, and a choking sensation—the sixth conclusion was that the viscera of the deceased presented no appearance whatever, so far as they were examined by us, to account for death from natural causes—seventhly and lastly, that tartar emetic may be used as a safe and innocent medicine, or may be used as a poison, according to circumstances—we have no evidence before us to enable us to form a judgment as to the circumstances under which it was taken by the deceased, or to enable us to say, in this case, whether it was or was not the cause of death—therefore, the result is, we find antimony in the body, but cannot account for the cause of death—Dr. Bees, who made the analysis with me, fully concurs in these conclusions—Dr. Bees is assistant physician to Guy's Hospital—the antimony may have been given in small doses, hours, if not days, before death—antimony is given in cases of fever and inflammatory diseases—the heart might have been emptied by spasms, or by poisons—antimony would not cause it—my opinion is that Cook died from tetanus, and that this was caused by medicine adminis tered or taken shortly before death—I believe that the pills on the Monday night and the Tuesday night contained strychnia—I do not believe that the medicine administered by Dr. Bamford could have produced the effects I have heard to-day—on the Monday night and Tuesday night, after these pills were taken, there is not the slightest indication of the action of morphia on the body—further than this, we found no mercury in the liver or other parts of the body, and I do not think that mercury or calomel could have been taken on Monday and Tuesday night, as well as on the other nights, without our discovering traces of it in the liver—the witness Mills has accurately described the symptoms produced by a small dose of strychnia, such as would be caused by the pills given at half past 10 o'clock on Monday night, and the symptoms on the Tuesday night were those which would be produced by a larger dose of strychnia given in the pills taken on that night—there is an absence of any natural cause or disease to account for this tetanus—the brain and spinal marrow were healthy—there was no insensibility before death, perfect consciousness and merely that effect of spasm upon the muscular system which a poisonous dose of strychnia would cause. Alfred S. Taylor, M. D.")

Q. Your evidence having been given on that occasion, you returned to town, I suppose? A. Yes; I soon after knew that the prisoner had been committed on the charge of Wilful Murder.

Q. And you knew, of course, that his life depended in a great degree on your opinion? A. No; my opinion was in reference to death from poison—I expressed no opinion of the prisoner's guilt—I knew that I should be examined as a witness in all probability upon his trial—I thought it my duty, knowing that, to abstain from all public discussion of the questions which might influence the public mind—I wrote a letter to the Lancet on the subject, contradicting several misstatements which were made with regard to my evidence. ( The letter was here read as follows from the "Lancet" of Feb. 2nd, 1856: "Correspondence. ' Audi alteram partem. ' The Ruge ley Suspected Secret Poisoning Cases. A Communication from Alfred S. Taylor, M. D., F. R. S., Professor of Medical Jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital, to the Editor of the Lancet " (That was in answer to what had appeared

in a previous journal—the " Audi alteram partem " is not mine—none of I the heading is mine, it is the editor's—he inserted certain observations in reference to the case, misrepresenting the case, and completely misrepre senting my opinion, and I wrote that in answer.) "Sir,—I have great pleasure in replying to the inquiries contained in your leading article of January 19th. 1. I stated that I had never known antimonial powder, when given in medicinal doses ( i. e. from 5 to 8 grains at a dose), to produce violent vomiting and purging, I am aware that experience differs on this point; that some have found this substance inert, while others have found it very active. From some recent experiments on antimonial prepara tions, I think it not unlikely that the powder may sometimes contain arseniate of lime. Dr. Pereira mentions, that in the large dose of half a teaspoonful, it on one occasion produced violent vomiting, purging, and sweating; while in still larger doses (120 grains at a dose) prescribed by Dr. Elliotson, it occasioned in some instances only nausea. I have never met with any case in which serious symptoms could be referred to its operation; and in the case of Ann Palmer, this medicinal preparation would not account for the antimony found in her body. 2. My statement as to the cause of death was, that the deceased died from the effects of tartar emetic, and from no other cause. That is the opinion which Dr. Rees and I formed from the result of our examination, and from the description of the symptoms under which the deceased laboured during the eight days which preceded her death. It is an opinion which I believe is now equally shared by the two medical attendants of the deceased We are quite pre pared to maintain this opinion on the trial. You will excuse me from entering into our reasons for this opinion on the present occasion, as this may form a very fair and proper subject for cross-examination at the trial. Possibly the defence may be, that tartar emetic in small doses is not a poison, that it cannot under any circumstances destroy life, and that it was the very best remedy for the disease (English cholera) under which it was stated the deceased was labouring. One other point connected with, this inquiry may be here adverted to. The examination of the organs was made fifteen months , not' fifteen weeks' after death, and the viscera examined were as well preserved as I have seen them in many cases of arsenical poisoning. They were in a better state of preservation than the viscera of Walter Palmer, whose body has been buried for a period of three months only in a leaden coffin. The viscera in Ann Palmer's case were in such a state of preservation as to allow us to form an opinion of their condition. 3. This inquiry refers to the elimination of antimony from the body. Ac cording to my experience, antimony is analogous to arsenic in the rapidity with which it enters into the blood and passes out of the system. These two metals are wholly different in this respect from mercury and lead, and probably from copper. I shall be most happy, after the trial, to furnish you with facts and authorities, as far as 1 can, in reference to these interesting points. In the meantime, as this question may also form a fair subject for cross-examination, a detailed answer to it may be for the present reserved 4. The fourth inquiry involves, as you have justly suspected, an error of the press, What I said was to this effect: that if there were symptoms of fever, antimonial medicines may be fairly prescribed. In concluding this letter I would observe, that during a quarter of a century which I have now specially devoted to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases like those suspected cases of poisoning at Bugeley. The mode in which they will affect the person accused is of minor importance compared with

their probable influence on society. I have no hesitation in saying, that the future security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge, the jury, and the counsel who may have to dispose of the charges of murder which hare arisen out of these investigations.") ( Mr. Serjeant Shee read again to the witness the concluding paragraph in the letter )—That is my opinion now—I found it stated broadly and openly that strychnia might cause death, and that if it did, it would always be found in the body, which I deny—it is untrue, and would lead to the loss of hundreds of lives—further, it has been circulated in every paper thai a person could not be killed by tartar emetic in small doses; that I deny—it is untrue, and would lead to hundreds of lives being destroyed.

Q. And did you think it a right thing to publish that opinion before the man was put upon his trial for his life? A. I have no prejudice against the man, I merely speak as to the investigation of the facts of the case—I entertain no prejudice whatever—I maintain the principles of science in the doctrine which I there comment upon—if those statements which I have seen circulated in medical and other periodicals were to have their way, there is not a life in this country that would be safe: that is what I say.

Q. Then do you adhere to your opinion that the mode in which they will affect the person accused, that is, leading him to the scaffold, is of minor importance compared with their probable influence on society? A. No—I have never suggested the leading to the scaffold; I hope he will be acquitted if that is concerned, but I say that the lives of sixteen mil lions of people are of greater importance than that of one—allow me to state, as you are putting this as a sort of objection to my views and evidence, that I find here in two dead bodies antimony; one of these per sons died suddenly; in the other I find the body saturated with antimony, which I never found before in my examination of 300 dead bodies in this country, and I say these circumstances demand explanation—I have ex pressed no opinion about the prisoner.

Q. And you adhere to the opinion, as a medical man and a member of an honourable profession, that you were right in publishing that letter before he came to his trial? A. I was right in stating my opinion in answer to the comments that have been made on my evidence—no comments had been made by the prisoner, but his attorney, Mr. Smith, has circulated through every paper that Dr. Taylor was inaccurate—I had no wish or motive to charge any one with poisoning, but my duty concerns the lives of all, as well as one person—I have seen a Mr. Augustus Mayhew, the proprietor of the Illustrated Tynes , Once or twice.

Q. Did you allow a picture of yourself and Dr. Kees to be taken for the purpose of publication in his paper? A. If you will be so good as to call it a caricature, I will say no, I did not—I never knew it was taken until it appeared in the Illustrated Times —Mr. Mayhew came to me with a letter from Professor Faraday—I did not receive him in my laboratory when I was experimenting with Dr. Bees—I did not receive him in my laboratory—it is wholly untrue—I never saw him in my laboratory—he called on me with a letter from Professor Faraday—I saw him—I did not know that he called for the purpose of my affording him information for an article in his Illustrated Times , and his publication of it is the most disgraceful thing I ever knew—I never saw him before—I did not know that he was editor of the Illustrated Times —on my oath I did not—it was the greatest deception that was ever practised on a scientific man; most disgraceful.

Q. There were two persons called the first time; I have it, "They can didly

informed the doctor that they desired to publish the particulars of their conversation with him, and requested his permission to do so, and it was at once granted, they having undertaken to hold themselves responsible for not publishing any statement that might be prejudicial to the interests of justice "? A. He called on me with a letter from Professor Faraday, and I received him as I would Professor Faraday himself—he entered into conversation with me about these cases, and made a representation, as I under stood, that he was connected with an insurance company, and he wished to know the number of poisoning cases that had occurred to me during a number of years—after we had conversed about an hour, he asked me if there was any objection to his publishing those details—I said, still thinking that he was connected with some insurance company, that, as far as the cor rection of errors was concerned, I had no objection, but I objected to anything else appearing—I did not then know that he was the editor of a journal—I said I had no objection to anything appearing in answer to what has already appeared, with the corrections of the different mistakes—he went away that evening without telling me that he was the editor of the Illustrated Times or connected with it—on my oath I did not know it—I did not know it till the article was in print—I remonstrated verbally—he called on me with the article—not with my caricature in it—he was cautious enough not to put that in; merely part of the article set up in type, the slip—the paper bad not been published—it was the day before publication—I protested against the publication—I told him I objected to it—I struck out all that I saw regarding these cases, and he afterwards put the article in the form in which it is now—I could not prevent the bad taste of his publishing my conversation with him on matters not relating to the case—I did not permit him to publish anything connected with the Rugeley case—I do not remember that I saw the heading on the slip of "Our Interview with Dr. Alfred Taylor"—I will swear to the best of my belief and judgment he did not show that to me—he showed me a slip, part of what appeared in that article—I do not believe he showed me a slip as long as this, "Our Interview with Dr. Alfred Taylor"—I will swear that I do not think he did—I struck out everything connected with the Rugeley cases—I looked upon myself as deceived and cheated—a person had come with a letter from one of the highest authorities in the country, and ex tracted from me, without any previous warning) information which he after wards made use of for his vile publication.

Q. Why did you not desire your servant to show him the door, and dare him to publish what had passed? A. Until we had had all this conversation I did not know anything about it—he came again on the Thursday morning, and it was not till then that I knew he was connected with this weekly paper—he told me as he was going away, that it was the Illustrated Times —I struck some out of what he showed me—I had nothing to do with allowing the rest to be published—I objected to the publication—I said I did not like this mode of putting the matter before the public—that I did not like to interfere with his journal, but I struck out all connected with the Rugeley cases—I told him I objected to all the parts which concerned the Kugeley cases; it was most dishonourable—I did not protest against anything being published of that interview.

Q. Did you not know perfectly well in this month of February, just after the shock which the country had received about these Rugeley murders, or imputations of murder, that "Our Interview with Dr. Taylor" must be taken to apply to what was then full in the public mind? A. I

did not know what it would apply, to—I did not think so—I did not think anything about it—I thought it was a great cheat to extract from me this information and to publish it—it was on the morning of Thursday that he called on me with the slip, the day before publication—he was with me not above twenty minutes or half an hour—I remonstrated with him—I was not angry in the sense of the word quarrelling—I told him I objected to that mode of dealing with the case.

Q. Did you allow him to publish this: "Dr. Taylor has requested us to state that, although the practice of secret poisoning appeared to be on the increase, it should be remembered that on analysis the chemist can almost always detect the presence of poison in the body"? A. I did not request him to state anything of the kind—if I had seen that on the slip he showed me, I should have struck it out—I looked it over and struck out everything I saw connected with the Bugeley cases, and he went away—I felt that I had been imposed upon—I remember seeing this, "and that, when analysis fails, as in cases where small doses of strychnia had been administered, physiology and pathology will invariably suffice to show the cause of death"—I did not strike that out—I did not know that it might circulate moat extensively amongst the persons from whom the jurors to try the case might be selected—I did not think of the matter at all—I think it is very proper information to give, so that the public shall be aware that chemical analyses are not the only things they have to rely upon—I do not remember this passage, "murder by poison can be detected as readily as murder in any other form, while the difficulty of detecting and convicting the murderer is felt in other cases as well as those where poison has been the means employed"—that I do not remember—the article was very much altered, I could see that—it was a disgraceful thing—I have not seen the gentleman since—I wrote him a letter concerning the matter—I complained of it—I can state the substance of that letter—I saw an advertisement in the Times paper which repre sented me as giving this information, and directly I saw it I wrote to contradict it, and they withdrew the advertisement—it was some adver tisement connected with the very number you are alluding to, it was an advertisement in the Times newspaper with regard to this information—I immediately desired it to be withdrawn, and I received a letter from Mr. Mayhew to say that it should be—that was immediately after the publication of this, directly I saw the advertisement—I think the advertisement appeared on the Thursday or Friday, I am not sure which; it was to induce people to purchase that number—I did not say to a gentleman of the name of Cooke Evans that I would give them strychnia enough before I had done with them, or words to that effect—I do not know such a person; I did not say it to anybody—I have never said anything so vulgar or improper that I know of, never to my knowledge; give whom a dose of strychnia?—you have been greatly misinstructed—I deny it, or any words to that effect; I have not talked about giving anybody doses of strychnia—I have not said, "He will have strychnia enough before I have done with him"—it is utterly false, and Mr. John Smith, the person who has suggested that to you, has been guilty of other false statements, both in his letter to Sir George Grey, and upon other occasions, he has misrepresented my statements, and evidence, and opinions altogether—I made a medical report to which I referred when we were talking about the first letter—the medical report was handed to Dr. Bees; he took possession of it—I did not get a report drawn up by the medical gentlemen who made the post mortem examination.

Q. Was it not produced from your hands two days ago in court? A. You are under a mistake about it; it was a private letter, not signed by the gentlemen, from Dr. Harland to Mr. Stevens—it was a statement of the results of the post mortem examination for Mr. Stevens's private information—it has been inaccurately called a medical report in the course of this trial—it is merely Dr. Harland's statement of the examination for the informa tion of Mr. Stevens—it has been read here as a formal medical report—I believe that it has no signature but Dr. Harland's—I have had it ever since.

Q. I understand you distinctly to say, that as respects the effect of strychnia on the human body, you have no knowledge of your own at all? A. I have not seen a case; I have some knowledge—I have written a book upon the subject.

Q. Do you, from your reading, know of any fatal case in which the patient under strychnia poison has had, while the paroxysm lasted, as much command over the muscles of animal life and voluntary motion as Mr. Cook had on the Monday and Tuesday nights, according to the evidence of Mills and Jones? A. I do not see that he had much command over the muscles of voluntary life and motion—I mean to say, his symptoms are quite in accordance with the ordinary action of strychnia.

Q. Can you tell me a single case, either in your book or in any authentic medical work, of a patient seized with tetanic symptoms by strychnia poison, sitting up in his bed talking? A. He was seized with the tetanic symp toms after he had sat up in his bed.

Q. Do you know of any instance in which a patient has been beating with both his arms the bed clothes under the influence of strychnia poison within a short time, a quarter of an hour, before his death? A. The symptoms generally commence with some agitation of the body—it is manifested in various ways—it is exactly what I should expect from the sense of suffocation.

Q. You say it is exactly what you should expect; your experience is on rabbits, and the first symptom you have seen is a sudden fall on the side? A. You asked me the question with reference to my reading and knowledge—I am quite willing not to answer, except as to rabbits; but I thought you asked me with reference to my general knowledge—the beating of the bed with the arms in the way described merely indicates to me that he was very uneasy, that there was some difficulty about his breathing, that he felt an oppression, and it was an attempt at relief—that was before the tetanic symptoms set in; there was a feeling of suffocation.

Q. First answer my question; do you know of a single case, either in your book or in your general reading, of the symptoms of poison by strychnia commencing or exhibiting themselves during any time of the paroxysm, by the operation of beating the bed? A. There have been only about fifteen fatal cases altogether—I have not heard of a person taking strychnia in bed before—I do not think the beating of the bed is well known under the name of malleatio, and is a very common symptom of ordinary convulsions, not to my knowledge—I know the term malleatio—it means beating of anything—that does not terminate in tetanus—it is a common form of vio lent convulsions in persons who suffer from a sense of suffocation, whether it depends on strychnia or other causes—I have heard of one such case that has been communicated to me by a friend—it was in a private letter which came to me—it is not a published case—the person did not sit up, but he shook as if he had an ague fit before the symptoms came on; that was all, agitation—I should not call that malleatio; I should not give it so learned a name—I would call it quaking, shaking; the agitation is ex pressed

in different ways—I have not met with a case of a person who had taken strychnia, sitting up in bed and beating the bed—I have not known many instances in which the patient has screamed before he was seized with the fit; that is common in convulsions not occasioned by strychnia poison—in many cases they scream very soon after the spasm sets in, when the spasm begins; the pain felt is very severe—I have not known it before they begin—I have known cases in which they speak freely—I cannot refer to any case of that kind after the paroxysm has commenced—I do not re member one at the present time.

Q. Do you agree as far as your reading enables you to do so, with this description of strychnia in Dr. Watson's book; it was a case in Middlesex Hospital: "Unluckily, through mistake or negligence of the person who was at that time the dispenser, a grain of the poison was administered at once to each patient; it was given about seven o'clock in the evening; about half past 7 it began to produce its characteristic effects upon one of the patients. He was suddenly seized with tetanic spasms; legs separated widely from each other, and rigidly extended, and the head and trunk bent backwards; he was in fact in a state of oposthotonos; his abdomen was quite hard, and his limbs were stiff even when the violence of the paroxysm had abated. He cried out with the pain at the coming on of the spasms; any attempt at movement, even the touching him by another person, brought them on. That is just what happens in the disease; the opening of a door, a sudden current of air; the smallest bodily effort, the act of swallowing, nay, even the imagination will be sufficient to renew the spasmodic tightening of the affected muscles." Is that consistent with your knowledge and reading of the effect of the spasms? A. I have noticed it in animals especially; I stated that—I have a collection of cases, but that fact is not noticed as a point at all.

Q. Can you tell me or refer me to any one case in your book or elsewhere, any authentic writing, in which the effect of the strychnia affection or paroxysm in a fatal case has been delayed so long after the ingestion of the poison as in Cook's case on Tuesday night? A. Yes, and longer, a fatal case; in page 185 of my "Medical Jurisprudence," 5th edition—the book on poisons is eight years old, I put it down as an observation—"In a case commu nicated to the Lancet , of Aug. 31, 1850, page 259, by Mr. Bennett, one grain and a half of strychnia, taken by mistake, destroyed the fife of a healthy young female in an hour and a halt. It is remarkable that no symptoms ap peared for an hour"—I do not think that is the longest period on record which has elapsed between the ingestion of the poison and the commence ment of the symptoms—I think in that case it was taken in pills; but I have the Lancet here to refer to if you wish—that was a remarkable and unusual case—it was certainly long with regard to the cases that had up to that time occurred—there is one case of two hours, and a half—that was not a fatal case, but that does not at all affect the medical question—I beg to say that the fatality of the case has nothing to do with the period of commence ment of symptoms—that was not a fatal case—a grain and a half is a full dose, not a very considerable dose—it is a dose from which a man is very likely to die.

Q. Is there any one case in your book in which the attack has taken place more than half an hour after the ingestion of the poison? A. What book are you referring to—the book on poisons is eight years old—I believe there is not in that book, but there is in the other book—cases have occurred since 1848—I have a reference to a case here of one grain and a half

—that is a case published by Dr. Christison—the symptoms came on in three hours—it was fatal—that is a case by Dr. Bardsley, page 895, 4th edition—it was a case in which the patient had been affected with hemiplegia for four weeks and began to use strychnia, and had been doing so for eleven days with out particular inconvenience—"During this period he had taken twice a day gradually increasing doses until the amount of one grain was attained, when the usual physiological effects having ceased to occur, the quantity was in creased to a grain and a half, but the first dose caused anxiety and excite ment; in three hours (it says it ended in three hours, it does not say that, I the symptoms did not commence in three hours,) there was stupor and loss of speech, and at length violent tetanic convulsions, which proved fatal in three hours and three quarters"—it does not tell you when it commenced—Dr. Christison can give an account of it—I do not know of any other fatal case.

Q. Is there any case in your book on poisons in which the symptoms have been known to occur at a longer period than half an hour from the ingestion of the poison? A. No, but you must not go back to 1848—in giving an answer to your question, I am looking to what has occurred in the meantime.

Q. Do you know that Dr. Bardsley, from whom Dr. Earth took the case, states that he cannot admit that the death was wholly attributable to the dose of strychnia employed, but might be referable to other conditions, which he enumerates? A. All those conditions are quite compatible with death from strychnia—I would not, after that opinion from the gentleman who reports it, say it was attributable solely to strychnia; but I should exercise my judgment, and see whether strychnia had not something to do with it—I have no other case in my reading to which I can refer—I have here the Lancet , which contains the case that has been referred to, and it is more remarkable than I had thought—the account is this: "On the day previous, she had consulted a surgeon for amaurosis, for which he prescribed three grains of strychnine in a solution of ten drachms of cinnamon water, directing twenty drops to be taken three times daily in a wine glass of water—a written label of directions was attached to the bottle, and she was also verbally informed of the dangerous nature of the medicine—upon the bottle containing the medicine being pro duced, I found the unfortunate young woman had taken about four and a half or five drachms, which had been poured out by a little girl thirteen years of age, who, on being told to pour out twenty drops, and probably being ignorant of the meaning of a drop, poured out the above quantity—after taking the medicine, she went about her work, cleaned out a room, and went into the kitchen to breakfast—she swallowed a cup of tea and was commencing a second, when she complained of feeling very ill, having a peculiar kind of twitching over her limbs, which began rather more than an hour after the administration of the poison; and in a very short time after this, general tremors and violent spasmodic fits came on, which excited the alarm of the family, and I was immediately sent for"—so that in that case the poison was really taken dissolved, and one would have anticipated a more speedy action—the stomach pump was used, and strong emetics were administered; perhaps I had better read on: "On my arrival and examina tion of the patient, I found a general tremor over the body, the limbs rigid, and the face exhibiting an almost maniacal expression, which was soon fol lowed by a violent fit of tetanus—between the fits she did not utter any expression of alarm, but would occasionally request a little cold water—the muscles of the jaw remained so rigid between the spasms as to prevent their

being opened sufficiently to admit the tube of the stomach pump being in troduced, but were sufficiently relaxed to admit of the emetic being adminis-tered—it however repeatedly happened that the attempt of the patient to take liquids was followed by so violent a spasmodic fit as to prevent her swallowing it, and to give that apparent dread of water so well marked in cases of hydrophobia—even after her request for water, on attempting to give it to her, she would find herself so incapable of swallowing it, as to request that its administration might be deferred until the fit was over, the effort to place the cup to the mouth being generally sufficient in itself to induce a relapse of the spasms."

Q. Do you not know a single fatal case in which the symptoms have manifested themselves as long as an hour and a half after the ingestion of the poison? A. No, I do not.

Q. Can you refer me to any authentic case of strychnia poison in which the patient has recovered from a paroxysm in so short a time as Mr. Cook recovered from, the paroxysm on Monday night? A. Within what time did he recover?—I do not understand that it was so short—if he was well the next morning, and it had no effect during the whole of the next day, but he was comfortable and happy, the recovery would depend entirely on the dose taken; if he took the sixteenth of a grain he would recover sooner than if he had taken an eighth—I do not at present remember any authentic case of strychnia poison in which the patient has recovered from a paroxysm in as short a time as Mr. Cook did, he being well before the morning, but I can conceive in medical practice such cases would frequently occur; it is nothing at all unusual—I say from my reading and experience, a recovery after three or four hours will depend materially upon the dose—I see in a case at page 265 of the "Medical Jurisprudence," second edition, "the con vulsions gradually subsided about four hours after the first attack"—that was a case of nux vomica—that is the same poison, but in a much milder form—all its power depends on the strychnia—"in this case a girl aged twenty swallowed half an ounce of the powder, and in half an hour the usual tetanic symptoms came on, but she was perfectly sensible—in administering the remedies, the spasms in the muscles of the jaw were such as to cause her to bite through the tongue—the convulsions gradually subsided about four hours after the first attack, and the next day, although feeble and exhausted, she was able to walk home"—I learn from Mr. Cook's case that he was asleep before three o'clock, and comfortable during the whole of the next day.

Q. Do you know any other case in which, after an administration of strychnia poison, the patient has recovered as soon as Mr. Cook did on Monday night? A. The difficulty is in settling the time of recovery; that is not a point that medical men enter into—they do not give the time generally, they merely put "The patient recovered," without any particular statement as to the period of the attack—I do not think the attack on Tuesday night was the result of anything given on Monday night—I do not know of any case of strychnia poison in which there was so long an intermission of the paroxysm as between the iwo fits of Monday and Tues day night.

Q. Is it the result of your experience or reading, that the person who dies from strychnia poison continues rigid in the attitude and position of limb in which he dies? A. I have seen that in animals, in rabbits; they continue rigid in the attitude and position of limb in which they die—I do not remember a case in particular as to men—if a person dies in a spasm, the spasm is likely to continue—I have a case which will answer it in the fifth edition of the "Medical Jurisprudence;" it was inspection twenty

hours after death, and the body was then very rigid—there is no account in these cases of how the body was at the moment of death—the body would be rigid in twenty-four hours, whatever sort of convulsion he died of; not very rigid—there would not be the slightest difficulty, I think, in finding such a case, but I cannot refer you to one now—I found in one of the rabbits destroyed, that the spasm continued after death—I do not know that it con stantly happens, even in rabbits, that the spasm and the contractions instantly cease immediately with death, or just before death, and that the body becomes perfectly pliant—it does so in some instances, in one out of five cases.

Q. Do you agree in this opinion of Dr. Christison, "I have not altered the statement as to this point in the former edition," that is, that the rigi dity supervenes at an early period after death; "yet I strongly suspect that authors, who describe the spasm which precedes death to continue as it were into the rigidity that occurs after death, must have observed inaccurately, for, in the numerous experiments that I have made and witnessed upon ani mals, flaccidity invariably took place at the time of death, and continued for a moderate interval"? A. Dr. Christison speaks according to his own experience, and I speak according to mine—it happened in one case in my own experience, and it became rigid very soon after, as Dr. Christison describes it—I do not recollect enough of those that I killed twenty five years ago to know whether their limbs were stiff or flaccid—four of the five last remained stiff after death; one was quite flaccid; that was seen by Dr. Christison—I attended particularly to the last five—I see that in Dr. Bamford's deposition, he went to Mr. Cook as soon as he was called, arrived immediately after he was dead, and found the body quite straight upon the bed—in my judgment, that body might be under the influence of oposthotonos—the oposthotonos may have relaxed in the act of dying—that would be an instance of becoming flaccid—the clenching of the hand is the result of violent tetanic spasms—that may occur in other violent spasms—it does not occur in all forms of convulsion—the great point is this, that in tetanus it remains so; in other convulsions it comes and goes—it is always so, according to my knowledge—I stated that the heart was generally full of blood in animals—I mean to say that the colour tests of strychnia are so uncertain and fallacious that they cannot be depended upon, unless you first get strychnia in a visible and tangible form—it is not impossible to get that from the stomach in all cases; it depends on the quantity that remains in the stomach—I think it is in some cases impossible, where the quantity is very small—I do not think that as much as the fiftieth part of a grain could be discovered; that is to say, not separated—it might be a case of difficulty to detect half a grain—it depends upon the amount of food in the stomach with which it was mixed.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. In your reading, about which my learned friend has been asking you, have you met with cases in which it has appeared that the heart was found empty after death, where the death has taken place from strychnia? A. Yes—that has been in the human subject—I find three such cases—I think the emptiness of the heart, after such a death, is owing to spasmodic action, spasm affecting the heart in the last moments of life—there is no reason why that should be more likely to be the case in the human subject than in a small animal like a rabbit; I know of no distinction—the only thing I would observe is, that I think the heart is generally more filled where the paroxysms are more frequent, so that the blood accumulates more in the interior—suppose the paroxysms to be short and violent, and cause death in a few minutes, that is the kind of case in

which I should expect to find the heart empty—the rigidity after death in the cases where I found it, always affected the same muscles; the muscles of the limbs especially, and the muscles of the back—where the rigidity is relaxed in death, it afterwards returns, while the body is warm; I mean in cases of death by strychnia: in ordinary death it only appears when the body is cold—the rigor mortis comes on after the body is cold, or nearly so.

Q. Would the rigidity of the muscles of the extremities as long as two months after death, the clenching of the hands, and the distortion of the feet and toes, afford you any indication of whether the person died from tetanus or not? A. I have never before known such a case—it would indicate the great violence of the spasm from which the party died—I am not able to say whether the poison of strychnia would act witty greater power when once its effect was set up, upon a person who had been lowered by previous disease—with regard to the duration of time in which the effect of the poison would begin to show itself, it would depend on the violence and frequency of the spasms—the period required to set up the action of the poison would vary according to the constitution and the strength of the individual, and according to the power of absorption—the beating with the hands and arms I ascribe to a sense of general uneasi-ness, and a feeling of suffocation—the feeling of suffocation is one of the early symptoms of death by strychnia—that uneasiness would produce the effect in question—with regard to the detection of the antimony, we separated the antimony, and then applied various tests—I have been asked whether one or other of those processes would not be open to difficulty, supposing there were any impure substances used in the chemical process—that would be so with regard to impure substances—I have no doubt the substances I used were pure—they were all tested on that occasion before I used them—it would certainly not be at all likely to be the case with regard to three distinct processes—it is the fact that the three distinct processed gave the same result, which strongly corroborates the correctness of each—I and Mr. Brande witnessed them—I have not the least doubt that that which I produced was antimony—the quantity I found does not enable me to form any judgment as to the quantity that may have been administered; that is to say, a small quantity may be the residue of small doses, or the residue of large—supposing that the antimony were given for the purpose of keeping up sickness, the effect of the sickness would be to throw off some portion of that which was taken—when antimony is given, it passes out with the urine, but some of it passes into different parts of the body—if the antimony is not withdrawn, it remains longest in the liver; it then goes into the fat and bones, where it may be found after three or four months, but I have not met with an instance yet, and the cases quoted do not show that in those instances in which there was antimony in the coats of the stomach and in the bowels, it had been longer than two or three weeks in the body.

Q. Have you found any in the bones and tissues? A. We did not analyze them—I have stated that I suggested questions to the Coroner—I did so, because the Coroner did not put questions which enabled me to form an opinion.

Q. Did he appear to you not to put the necessary questions which he ought to have put under the circumstances? A. I think that it was not owing to any intentional omission, it was rather his want of knowledge, perhaps, of the points upon which my opinion should be based—I asked him to put those questions.

COURT . Q. He is a legal gentleman, and not a medical? A. He is—he

did not exactly understand the medical bearing of the question, and that induced me to suggest questions.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Then you put some questions which either be put or the witnesses answered? A. Yes, I could not give an opinion without them—I observed that there was an omission to take down the answers—I did not make any observation on that point; I do not remember that I did—I got the information to give an opinion upon—at the time I wrote that letter which has been adverted to, to Mr. Gardner, in which I spoke of antimony as the possible cause of death, I had not had the symptoms which attended the attacks upon Mr. Cook, and which ended in his death, brought to my knowledge—we had merely general information—I did not know the symptoms at the time—I merely had the information that he was well about seven days before he died, and that he died in con-vulsions—I did not know that they had been convulsions of a tetanic character—there was nothing at that time to lead me to suppose that strychnia might have been the cause of death, except the information I received of Palmer's having bought strychnia on the Tuesday—this informa-tion referred also to prussic acid and opium—that was all that I heard.

Q. Failing to find either prussic acid, opium, or strychnia, you referred to antimony as the cause of death? A. As the only substance found in the body—on the occasion of my writing the letter to the Lancet , I had myself been made the subject of a great many attacks—I had been misrepresented as to what I had said upon the subject of the possibility or impossibility of detecting strychnia after death—not in the Lancet only, but in the newspapers, and in every quarter in fact, in the letter to Sir George Grey written by Mr. Smith there was a repetition of the same thing—before I wrote the letter to the Lancet , the subject bad been misrepresented in various newspapers in every direction—it had been represented that I had said that strychnia could not be detected in a dead body, that it was destroyed by putrefaction, when the question of putrefaction had never even arisen in Cook's case.

COURT . Q. Do you mean it could never be detected, or in this particular case? A. It had been represented that I had said that strychnia could never be detected—and the case which we do not refer to by name has been quoted against me, to show how easily it could be detected after death—what I said to the Coroner was, that when absorbed into the blood it could not be separated as strychnia, but if any remain in the stomach more than enough to destroy life, it might by care be found—it was with a view to my own vindication from those charges and misrepresentations that I wrote that letter.

DR. JOHN OWEN REES . I am a Fellow of the College of Surgeons, and Lecturer on Materia Medica at Guy's—I assisted Professor Taylor in making the analysis of Cook's stomach and intestines sent up—I have heard the evidence of Dr. Taylor of the result of that analysis; it has been very correctly given—I have at different times had my attention drawn a good deal to poisons after death—Dr. Taylor has accurately explained the quantity and the site where the antimony was discovered; I was present the whole time—antimony may be discovered if administered within a few days or a few hours of death—I agree with Dr. Taylor that, under the circumstances, the quantity of antimony we discovered was no test of the quantity which may have been administered—we failed, having applied all the tests, to discover strychnia—the stomach was presented to us in a most unfavourable state for the discovery of strychnia—I opened the jar myself, and found that the stomach had been cut open, and turned inside out,

it's mucous surface lying and rubbing against the intestines—the contents, bad there been any at all, must have been completely thrown among the intestines, and mixed up with them—that rendered it decidedly unfavourable to the hope of discovering strychnia—I believe that strychnia is absorbed before it produces it's symptoms—if by accident or design, enough strychnia is given to destroy life, that might be the consequence, I believe, without my being able to discover it after death—I quite agree with Professor Taylor, that it is the excess which you find; that when vitality is destroyed by the excess of the poison, and an excess remains, you can discover that with care sometimes—I have seen the various experiments tried on animals—I saw the experiments which Dr. Taylor tried on four of the rabbits, not on the fifth—I assisted in the analysis made of the animals, with the endeavour to discover strychnia in all these cases—we destroyed four animals, and failed to detect it in three—the symptoms which I remarked of the death of the animals very much resembled the symptoms which are described as attending Cook's death—I have never seen death in the human subject from strychnia—I have heard narrated in this Court the symptoms attending the death of Mrs. Serjeantson Smith from strychnia, those of the girl in a hospital in Glasgow, and those of a case which is anonymous: all the cases which have been detailed here I have listened to—they are in my opinion closely analogous to the symptoms attending this case, and quite analogous to the experiments which I have made on animal life: from strychnia.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. How do you administer the strychnia to animals. A. In pill or bolus—we do not put it into the month, and let them swallow it, but the animal is thrown on it's back, it's legs secured by the hands of assistants, the mouth opened, and the pill introduced into the mouth.

Q. Did you see any instance of the animal rejecting some portion? I am told it is the case sometimes with rabbits, that the animal rejects some portion. A. In the four cases I saw, the pill was well taken; I did not observe that there was any rejected, but I must state that, in the fifth case, which I did not see, I administered the pill, and in that case a small portion of it appeared to escape, but I had to lecture, and I cannot state—the three in which I failed included the two in which Dr. Taylor said that he recognized taste in one, and some degree of colour in the other.

COURT . Q. That was not one of the four you have spoken of? A. No. that was the fifth case.

MR. GROVE . Q. You have told us that you considered that the poison I must be absorbed, do you know that when absorbed it has been found in the blood and other tissues? A. I do not know any satisfactory experiment to that effect—I do not know that Orfila has found it in animal matter which has been putrefied for a long time; I should not think that putrefaction should of necessity destroy it—in this case, when we got the stomach, it was approaching to putrefaction, but there was no very great degree of putrefac tion—we have no facts with reference to strychnia, on which to found our judgment in reference to it's action as a poison by absorption—the recognised colour tests are bichromate of potass, peroxide of lead, and manganese—they act in the same way—in our experiments, we prefer the use of strong sul phuric acid and bichromate of potass—the quantity of antimony we found did not weigh any quantity at all—I only form my opinion from deposits themselves so small as to be incapable of being weighed: by guess.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. The presence of antimony was clearly

shown? A. Clearly shown—I found my opinion, that this poison acts by absorption, on the fact that absorption is generally proved to be necessary, with regard to a great many mineral poisons, with vegetable poisons as well, and we found that anything which increases the power of absorption increases the activity of the poison when exhibited—that opinion would be strengthened by the fact that I found in some cases, one or two cases at all events, that as far as I could discover, the whole had been absorbed—I found none after death.

WILLIAM THOMAS BRANDE , Esq. I am professor of chemistry at the Royal Institution—I am honorary professor at the Royal Institution—I was not present at the analysis made by Dr. Taylor of the liver, spleen, and kidneys of the deceased Mr. Cook—I had a report from Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees sent to me for my opinion upon it—I was present at an actual analysis made by them at Guy's Hospital on Saturday, 3rd May—we then examined, in the first place, the action of copper upon a very weak solution of antimony—we found that there was no action until the solution was slightly acidified by muriatic acid, and heated: the antimony was then deposited—I am able to state positively that that deposit was antimony.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. I understand that this was where antimony had been given to your knowledge, not a portion of Mr. Cook's body? A. The case that I have just alluded to was one of a solution of emetic tartar made for the experiment—this is a repetition of the experi ment given in the books as Reinche's test—it is called Reinche's test, in reference to arsenic—I only know of three metals thrown down by the copper in that way altogether, arsenic, antimony, and I believe bismuth.

Q. Will not mercury be eliminated in the same way? A. Mercury will go down into the cold without the application of heat, and also when boiled, if you were to plunge it into the hot liquid, it will also go down—lead and tin will go down, I should think, in the cold also; I cannot speak with certainty upon that—lead and tin would also require heat and then go down, and be precipitated in the same way—the effect arising from sulphur and sulphuretted hydrogen does not produce a similar effect, they blacken the copper—the difference to the eye is very manifest—it is ft difference, but the testing afterwards will at once, of course, distinguish between the two.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Were those tests which were applied by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees the usual tests to ascertain the fact of antimony being present? A. Certainly—I have no doubt of the fact of antimony being there present—mine was a collateral experiment made upon what Dr. Taylor produced to me—what I did was to try the accuracy of the test which Dr. Taylor had applied—my object was to make an experiment that would satisfy me as to that being a very excellent mode of detecting anti mony, and I did satisfy myself.

DR. ROBERT CHRISTISON . I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Physi cians, and Professor of Materia Medica to the University of Edinburgh—in 1845, I published a treatise on poisons in relation to medical jurisprudence and the practice of physic—among other poisons, I have turned my attention to strychnia—in my opinion strychnia acts upon the human frame through absorption into the blood, and through the blood on the nervous system—I have seen a case of strychnia upon a human subject, but not fatally—an over-dose taken medicinally—I have frequently seen experiments tried upon animals, frogs, rabbits, cats, dogs, and one wild boar—I first directed uiy attention to this poison in 1820, in Paris—it was first

made matter of inquiry by the French—it was discovered two years before that, at Paris—in these experiments upon animals, I have given, in most of my experiments, very small doses, but sometimes as much as one grain—I call a small dose a sixth part of a grain—I do not know what is the smallest dose to kill a rabbit, as administered by the stomach—I have administered it by injecting it into the cavity of the chest by a small incision—I have given it by the stomach—I have found a sixth part of a grain take life away—in that way it killed a dog in two minutes—I have administered it oc-casionally by the stomach—I have seen a grain so given, I do not recollect having given more—that was to a rabbit; the animal died, but in how short a time I cannot recollect at this time—it is a long time since I made these experiments, but I have seen an experiment made lately—that was on a rabbit the other day, one of the experiments made by Dr. Taylor—he gave then, I think, about three-quarters of a grain; a very small quantity of that was rejected by the animal, or rather was not swallowed, three-quarters was given, but a very small quantity was not swallowed—between the eases of rabbits, cats, and dogs there is very little difference, but there are differences between individuals of the same species, and differences between the species—the first symptom that I have observed has been a slight tremor and unwillingness to move, then frequently the animal jerks it's head back slightly, and very soon after that all the symptoms of tetanus come on, which have been so often described in the evidence of previous witnesses—there is occasionally an intermission of the symptoms for a short while, an inter mission of the spasms—where it has been introduced into the stomach it is between five or six minutes and twenty-five minutes before the animal dies, in other cases it is much more rapid—from the giving the poison to the first symptoms coming on I have seen it as late as twelve minutes before it begins to act, before the first appearance of tremor: and then from the first commencement of the symptoms to their termination in death it is from five or six minutes to twenty or twenty-five minutes—the symptoms always have been very much the same—I think, where one can trace it very care fully, that the jaws and the back of the head seem affected first, and then the trunk and the extremities.

Q. Which first? A. In such rapidity that it is very difficult to follow the succession—I mentioned that I had sometimes observed differences in individuals of the same species, that the intermission sometimes is wanting—they die in one long, continuous spasm, with scarcely any intermission; but that is uncommon—I have commonly found a remission of the symptoms immediately before death, so that the animal has died quietly, that is a, state of fiaccidity about the period of the termination of life—I have always observed an interval before the rigidity of the muscles that takes place after death—there is a cessation of the symptoms immediately before death the rigidity is gone, the body is quite flaccid—in such cases, after death, we find the rigidity renewed very soon—I have not attended to it's duration—I have frequently opened the bodies of animals that have been thus killed—I never could see any effect which I could trace upon the stomach or intestines, nor any apparent effect upon the spinal cord or brain, any visible or apparent change; none which I could trace satisfactorily to the poison—the heart of such an animal after death generally contains blood—I have not found it devoid of blood in animals, it has been found so by others, but I have not—I have seen one case in the human subject—I have seen several where a mild over-action was produced, but one in which a severe over-action was produced—it was from an overdose given medicinally—the symptoms of

that case were the fixing of the jaw, spasmodic retraction of the head, slight grinning expression of the mouth, and a slight stiffness of the anus and fingers, no convulsion of the muscles of the trunk, great alarm; no con-vulsive movement of the arms and legs—I have collected all the cases that have occurred up to the time of the publication of my book, as far as I could discover them.

Q. Should you expect to find that the poison took a longer time in pro-ducing it's effect upon the human subject than it would upon an animal? A. It appears to require a longer time in the larger animals; in the case of the wild boar, it was injected into the chest—the operation, therefore, was rapid—that animal was dead in ten minutes from the third of a grain.

Q. To come back to the human subject: in what length of time, with the knowledge that you have derived from the cases that you have collected, does the poison operate upon the human subject? A. Do you mean operate to produce death, or begin to operate?

Q. Begin to operate. A. I think there are cases where strychnia, in the shape of nux vomica, has not operated for about an hour; but given in the shape of strychnia, the time seems in general shorter than nux vomica, but that will depend upon the mode in which it is given.

Q. In the generality of cases which are reported in the books it has been given in the solid form, generally in the solid, but sometimes in the fluid; and it will make a difference whether it is in the one or the other in the time it will require? A. Well, there is a want of precise information as to the materials with which the poison is given, and that often signifies materially—I mean the material with which it is mixed up—supposing that it was given in the shape of a pill, much might depend upon the materials used for making the pill—it might certainly be mixed up with materials which would protract the period at which the symptoms would make their appearance—resinous materials are all difficult of digestion—such materials would be within the knowledge and reach of a medical man—some of those resinous substances are often used for making ordi-nary pills—absorption would begin as soon as the pill came to be broken down or digested, but not before—the less soluble the pill the longer would be the period required—I do not think we can fix, in the present state of knowledge, the precise time for the poison beginning to operate after it has been taken into the stomach—when we give it to an animal for the purpose of watching the effect of the poison, we take care that the animal is fasting, and have every circumstance favourable for the action of poison—we mix it up with materials that shall be readily soluble in the stomach—I have seen cases of tetanus of the natural kind, arising from disease and from wounds—I cannot say how many instances—I have seen a good many arising from wounds, but very few from natural disease.

Q. Is there, in your opinion, any marked difference between natural tetanus and the tetanus of strychnia? A. I would not rest much upon the little difference of particular symptoms, but rather upon the course of the symptoms and the general circumstances attending them—the difference in respect of the course of the symptoms is, first, that in all the natural forms of tetanus the symptoms begin and advance much more slowly; and secondly, they prove fatal much more slowly.

Q. When once set up, do you find in the natural tetanus any complete intermission? A. In certain forms of natural tetanus there is no inter-mission—where the first paroxysm does not prove fatal, there are occasional short intermissions in tetanus from strychnia—I heard the evidence given

by Elizabeth Mills of what took place on the Monday, and by Mr. Jones of what took place on the Tuesday night, when Mr. Cook died—referring to my experience, both by personal observation and by general study of the two classes of tetanus, I should refer the spasms and other symptoms spoken to by those two witnesses, to strychnia, or one of the natural poisons containing it—there are four kinds of poisons, different from one another, which contain it—they are nux vomica, St. Ignatius's bean, snake wood, and a Java poison called tschk—they belong to different plants of the same genus, stryehnos, from all of which strychnia has been obtained—when I refer those symptoms to strychnia that would be pure strychnia, or one of the natural poisons which contain it, which I have enumerated—there is no natural disease to which I can refer these symptoms, none that I have ever seen or that I know.

Q. Now there is one thing which I omitted to ask you with regard to animals, and also to the human subject; when death takes place from tetanus or tetanic convulsions, does consciousness continue, or is it ever overcome? A. As long as, one can make an observation upon it, it remains—when the animal is in a state of strong universal spasm, it is impossible to make any observation on it's consciousness—in the animals that I have seen killed, the heart of some remains with blood in it—that is not always 90 with the human subject—it varies in the human subject—I ascribe the feet, that it sometimes is found with blood in it, and sometimes empty, to the particular mode of death, to the dose varying.

Q. What mode of death will have the effect of emptying the heart? A. It is evident that in some instances, as in this case, that took; place by a spasm of the heart—I then expect to find emptiness of the heart—the ipasm expels the blood—with regard to the finding of strychnia altar death, where the death has taken place from strychnia, I should not expect to find it where the quantity is small: but where there is an excess over the quantity necessary to destroy life by absorption, I should expect to find it if the excess is considerable—I think the colouring tests are uncertain in some respects—vegetable poisons are generally more difficult to detect—there is one, I know, for which there it no test that I know of—I did not see the stomach that was sent to Dr. Taylor to operate upon—I heard the description that he gave of it to-day—my opinion is, that it was in a very unsatisfactory condition for chemical analysis—if I had been called upon to analyze such a stomach as he has described, I should have entertained no reasonable expectation of doing any good with it, unless I had been informed that there was a considerable quantify of strychnia present—I mean it would be necessary that there should be a considerable quantity of strychnia in the stomach beforehand, in order to be able to find it under the circumstances—I heard the evidence as to the Leeds case, the Romsey case, and the Glasgow case—those were deaths by strychnia, I have no doubt—the symptoms of Mr. Cook appear to me to have been very similar.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. Do I understand you that the experiments, all but one that you made, were made by you many years ago? A. Those experiments, excluding the one, were before the colour tests were known—I do not think that I have made any observation about my having experimented much upon the tests for strychnia—none of the experiments that I made long ago had any reference to chemical analysis—I have made an experiment with the colour tests in the case of a man poisoned by strychnia, and I failed to find strychnia by one of the tests most relied on—that is the only one in which I made an

experiment with a colour test—that occurred in 1851—the test I employed there was the development of a violet colour, by means of sulphuric acid and the oxide of lead, used instead of the bichromate of potash, I did not try that in that case, nor the manganese, and no experiments with animals with those tests—that case was a man who was found dead—I did not see him, or see the administration of strychnia to him—he was found dead on a moor—I know nothing about the exhibition of strychnia of my own know-ledge—the case was investigated, and the particulars submitted to me in the usual manner—it is reported by the medical gentleman who consulted me upon the matter, in the Monthly Medical Journal of September, 1851, I think—from my own observation, I should say that animals who die from strychnia die by asphyxia—but you will find in another part of my work from that to which you refer, that I leave the question open—I wish you to understand by asphyxia, stoppage of the respiration—the literal meaning of it is stoppage of the pulse, but it no longer bears that meaning.

Q. Can you refer me to the head in your work? A. It is under the head of Nux Vomica, at the bottom of page 898: "On account of the sin gular symptoms of irritation of the spinal cord, uncombined with any injury of the brain, this poison is believed to act on the spinal marrow alone; but from some experiments by Segalas, it appears also to exhaust the irritability of the heart, for in animals he found that organ could not be stimulated to contract after breathing. A similar observation was made long ago by Wepfer, who found the heart motionless, and distended with arterial blood in its left cavities; and a case of poisoning in the human subject, to the same effect, will be presently related"—that leaves the question open, whether death, may not take place through an influence of the heart on the respiration, which is now decidedly my opinion from what has been done before, and from what has occurred since—the distension of the heart which you mention would not be consistent with death by asphyxia; not with arterial blood in the left side of the heart—I think it is a fair inference, therefore I leave the question open in that passage, and I quote experiments different from those which I myself found.

Q. Here is a case where the heart was distended with arterial blood? A. Death must have taken place from an affection of the heart.

Q. I understand you to state that you do not give that as an inference in your book, which I am not able to find, and do not find it now? A. It is to be understood that that was addressed to medical men, and they would understand it by that statement—I would beg to be allowed to add, that twelve years have elapsed since that book was published, and a great deal of information upon that subject has been acquired since—I do not infer that death arises from asphyxia if the body is flaccid—death must have arisen from the heart in that case.

Q. In the animals that you examined there was blood in the right cavity? A. In both.

Q. Now you state in your book, tell me whether you have reason to alter your opinion, that "When death does not take place suddenly, in a fit of spasms, the person continues to be affected for twelve or fourteen hours, with similar but milder paroxysms, and afterwards he may either recover without further symptoms, or expire in a short time, apparently from exhaustion, or suffer an attack of inflammation of the stomach and intestines, which may or may not prove fatal." Is that a statement which is in your opinion correct? A. In the man to whom reference was made a short time ago, whom I saw----

Q.

Be kind enough to direct your attention to my question; is the case I have read to you the general description of the effects of the poison? A. Yes, it is, as we were acquainted with the facts at that time.

Q. And subsequently, as to the general character; I am not asking you as to any special case; I read it, twelve or sixteen hours? A. I have known the effect cease in a shorter time.

Q. Tou state at page 903, after mentioning a case where the body was rigid, "The state of rigidity, however, does not invariably occur; on the contrary, in animals the limbs become flaccid immediately after death, but the usual rigidity supervenes at an early period;" I presume the usual rigidity is the rigor mortis? A. Yes.

Q. You add a note, "I have not altered the statement as to this point in a former edition, yet I strongly suspect that authors who describe the spasm which precedes death to continue, as it were, into the rigidity which occurs after death, must have observed inaccurately, for in the numerous experiments I have made and witnessed on animals, flaccidity invariably took place at the time of death, and continued for a moderate interval"—is that your present opinion? A. I think it is very likely, the interval being very short, that the attention may not have been attracted to the fact of there having been an interval of flaccidity—there have been, in some cases men tioned, very strong indications certainly of the spasm having continued from the spasm of life to what we call the spasm of death; but I think the ease may be explained on the supposition that there has been a want of minute attention—it is right to state, that in all investigations on the action of poisons, very close observation is necessary.

Q. You mention a ease at page 906, where you say, speaking of the true Angustura, "A boy who fell a victim to it implored his physician not to touch him, as he was immediately thrown into a fit." Is there a tendency to throw the patient into a fit when touched? A. That does not appear an immediate cause generally, but in animals it is very remarkable—it is not noticed in the generality of cases—there is no doubt it has been noticed—there is a case in Dr. Watson's book, in which it has been noticed—I have been struck with observing that it has not been so often noticed, considering that it is so very general in animals—it is not mentioned—in animals I have invariably observed it, unless you touch them very gently indeed—the bitter taste of strychnia is very remarkable and enduring—a grain in 80,000 gal lons will make it taste bitter, it is said; that is upon the authority of the French gentleman who discovered the poison—it is one grain in 80,000 parts, a little more than a gallon—it is not my own observation, I wish it to be understood.

Q. You stated that care was taken, in administering it to animals, to administer it to them fasting; do you think it likely that the effect would supervene more quickly if administered to an empty stomach? A. Certainly—I stated that we took pains to administer it to a healthy animal, and on an empty stomach.

Q. If resinous substances were used in a pill, would they not be found in the stomach afterwards? A. No, if they were not acted upon, they would pass into the intestines, and would be found in the intestines, if not discharged—the strychnia would be discharged with them, or gradually acted upon, for even resinous substances undergo solution in time in the stomach and intestines—if the resinous substance prevented the poison acting rapidly, it would prevent its absorption into the blood for a time—if

so, it would be more likely to leave portions of it in the stomach or intestines.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Would that depend materially on the quantity of the dose? A. Both on the dose and on the time during which the pill was allowed to remain—the oase of the gamekeeper is reported by the medical gentleman who called in my assistance—it is to be found in the "Monthly Journal of Medical Science," published at Edinburgh, of Sept., 1851—the facts are: a gamekeeper was found dead after being four days missing, and the head of the body was thrown back, the hands clenched, and the muscles rigid—a paper of strychnia was found in his pocket, and I found in the contents of the stomach indications of strychnia, sufficient to satisfy me under these circumstances as to the probable cause of death—by a process like that of Dr. Taylor, I obtained an extract strongly and enduringly bitter, and which became yellow by nitric acid, but it did not give the indication of the other colour test already mentioned; violet.

MR. GROVE . Q. You mean the oxide of lead? A. Yes.

COURT . Q. How did you ascertain that there was strychnia in the stomach? A. The gentleman who examined the case on the spot ascertained that it was strychnia—I do not recollect at the moment what his test was, but I was quite satisfied with his method of investigation at the time—it is a very easy matter to detect strychnia when it is found in a state of purity, as he found it there.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. He had it in his pocket? A. Yes—he was in the practice of using it for the purpose of killing vermin—I have nothing further to say upon the head of colour tests—it appears that colour tests are not to be relied upon in the case of strychnia in an impure condition—in the first place, you may not find indications of strychnia, we cannot depend upon finding strychnia by them; and secondly, they are subject to fallacy even when the strychnia is pure; that is from other substances not contain ing strychnia presenting similar appearances—those substances that might present the same appearance are the substances mentioned by Dr. Taylor—I should add, that I was not aware of that until they were pointed out to me by Dr. Taylor, and exhibited—I saw the results produced by him.

Adjourned.

Tuesday, May 20 th.

DR. JOHN JACKSON . I am a member of the College of Physicians—I have recently returned from India, where I have practised for many years, twenty five years—I have had my attention directed during that practice to cases of idiopathic and traumatic tetanus—the disease of idiopathie tetanus appears to be rare in England—it is very frequent in India compared with this country—in the hospital at Calcutta the cases of idiopathic compared with traumatic tetanus are about one third—not less than forty cases of idiopathic tetanus have come under my observation—idiopathic tetanus is equally fatal as the traumatic in India; it is not so considered, but I have found it so—very frequently it is found with children, both native and European—it takes place about the third day after birth—it has also been occasioned by cold in that climate—in children and infants there is a more marked symptom of locked jaw—in adults there is no difference in the symptoms from traumatic—in this disease, especially idiopathic, I have always seen it preceded by premonitory symptoms, which are a peculiar expression of the countenance,

stiffness of the muscles, of the throat, and jaws—in children and in infahls it will kill in forty-eight hours.

COURT . Q. Is that the usual time. A. Yes, forty-eight hours in adules, arising from cold, it is of longer duration, and may continue many days, going through the same grades as the traumatic form.

MR. JAMBS , Q. Hare you seen the evidence describing the atiack which Mr. Cook had on the Monday, and again on the Tuesday. A. Yes, but I was not in Court.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEAWT SHEE . Q. Pray, in these oasts of idiopathic tetanus, does the patient appear unconfortable for some were before the attack? A. Always—his appetite is not so much affected, but he complaing more of the muscles of his neck—he may, with twelve house previous to the attack, have the same relish far food, but he complaint more of stiflness of the back of his neck and stiffness in the front of his neck—he may take his food as usual within twelve hours of the premomitory symptoms, but his attention is more directed to the stiffness of his month and the stiffness of his neck.

Q. You say that within twelve hours of the attack he relishes food in if no attack was impending, but during those twelve house which precede in first attack, does not he appear lass anxious and less desirous of food, and lest desirous to eat? A. I have never heard them compiain—I have known cases of idiopathic tetanus in which the first paroxysm was in bed—I hate known it preceded by a stiffness of the neck and mouth, and I have known those oases take place ia women after confinement, alter miscarriage.

COURT . Q. You are asked now if you knew a case where the first paroxysm took place in bed? A. Yes, such as after confinement or mis carriage.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You will not tell me anytlhig but still ness of the neck? A. Sometimes there is difficulty of swallowing observed as a premonitory symptom—where there is difficulty in swallowing, there is sometimes disinclination.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. What interval hat occurred in those oases which have come under your attention between the premonitory symptoms and the convulsions? A. In an infant, not more than six hours, and in an adult in twelve to twenty-four hours, and sometimes more than that—the period from the commencement of the tetanic convulsions to death will very from three days to ten days—it may take place earlier—it sometimes many be as early as two days.

Q. Does that apply to traumatic tetanus as well as idiopathic tetanus? A. They are both alike, when the disease sets in, as regards the course of the symptoms.

COURT . Q. Then the idiopathic and traumatic tetanus only differ in this that the idiopathic seems to proceed without external injury, and the traumatic tetanus from an external injury? A. Yes; the idiopathio will take place from exposure to cold.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Is the disease much more prevalent in India than it is in these climates? A. Both forms are much more common in India than in this climate—I do not say that there is any difference in the severity of the symptoms in that climate and in this country, but they are more susceptible in that couritry; once set up, the symptoms of tetanus generally are the same—I never saw a ease in India where" the disease ran its course and ended in death in twenty minutes or half an hour.

DANIEL SCULLY BURGEN . re-examined. I am Chief Suptrtetendent of Police

in Staffordshire. I attended the Coroner's Inquest oil the body of Cook—after the verdict had been returned, I searched the house of Mr. Palmer on Saturday night, 15th December—I found some papers, and had them conveyed from the surgery into the drawing room—the great proportion of them were found in a drawer in the surgery, and a few were got in Mr. Palmer's bedroom—I searched every part of the house for papers—I put all that I found into one place, in the drawing room, locked the door, and put the key in my pocket—on the following day, Sunday, I endeavoured to make a selection of them in the presence of Mr. George Palmer, the brother of the prisoner—he is an attorney at Rugeley—I cannot say that I had given him notice what I was about to do—he was in the house, and was present—I found him there at the house, or else he came in immediately afterwards—he was present the greater part of the day, on Sunday, when I went through the papers—I was assisted in going through them by In spector Crisp and Superintendent Woollaston—we made a selection from the papers—I eventually carried all the papers to Stafford, I gave up the idea of selection—I continued the selection on the Monday, and took them all away on the Tuesday morning—Mr. George Palmer was there on Monday again, but I do not think he was there on Tuesday—I placed the papers all in a black leather bag, every paper I could lay my hand upon, and conveyed them to Stafford, where I delivered them to Mr. Hatton, the Chief Constable—some days afterwards, I believe on the 24th, the bag was opened in my presence, and the papers were then minutely gone through by Mr. Deane, the solicitor for the prosecution, who classified them, and they were then put back again in the bag, at night.

COURT . Q. Did Mr. Deane keep a portion of them? A. He copied a portion of them, I am not aware that he kept any—they were afterwards all placed in the bag again, and left in the Chief Constable's office and possession.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. When you were searching on the Monday and Tuesday, for the purpose of making what you originally contemplated, namely, a selection, did you go through the papers? did you see what they were? A. I did—I did not find a cheque purporting to bear the signature of Cook on Messrs. Weatherby—no such document as a paper purporting to bear the signature of Cook relating to bills of exchange, and dates and numbers, and acknowledging that several bills had been negotiated for the benefit of Cook, and that Palmer had had no benefit from them, came under my notice—some of those papers were, to my knowledge, afterwards returned—Mr. Deane selected a large number of letters and documents, private accounts, private letters, and various private documents, and they were delivered to Inspector Crisp, with instructions to deliver them to Mr. George Palmer—William Palmer was arrested on the night of 15th Decem ber—I attended the inquest on Cook—I remember Roberts, the apprentice to Mr. Hawkins, being examined—I remember Newton being examined—I cannot say how soon he was examined after Roberts had been examined—I did not fetch Newton, and do not know who did.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. The Inquest was held at the Talbot Arms, was it not? A. It was: it continued several days, it was adjourned from day to day—I am not able to charge my memory how many days it sat consecutively—they did not sit two days together the first time, it was one day, I think, each time until the last, but I am not positive; it was then three days, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday—I think there was an interval of a fortnight between the first and second meeting—the

first meeting was merely to impanel the jury—as to the second, I cannot give dates, but they can be given—there were several meetings, and, I think, before it was concluded, a fortnight had passed, or more; more than a fortnight elapsed between the first meeting and the last—the prisoner was arrested by the Sheriff a day or two before the verdict was delivered; that was on the civil process—I think he was at his house at Rugeley from the commencement of the inquest until the time he was arrested, unless he went up to London, and came back again—I saw him there—I am quite satisfied that such was the case—he did not attend the inquest himself, nor did any one act professionally for him—I do not know whether there had been an officer of London police at Rugeley, some time before the death of Cook—I heard of Inspector Field, but never saw him or met with him—I believe he is not a police officer—I do not know the mother of Elizabeth Mills, or the mother of Button—I have heard that there are such people as the Duttons—I do not know them, they reside too far from Kugeley—I do not know anything more of them than that they reside near their mother.

HENRY AUGUSTUS DEANE . I am of the firm of Chubb, Deane, and Chubb, solicitors, of Gray's Inn—I attended the inquest on the body of Ann Palmer on the part of the Insurance Company—I did not attend the inquest on Cook—I do not remember the prisoner's papers being seized at his arrest—the first time I saw the papers was at Stafford, on 24th Dec., they were then in the custody of Mr. Burgen, the last witness—they were in a black bag; which was unsealed in my presence, and I went through the whole of them—Mr. Burgen, Mr. Hatton, the chief constable, and myself were present—I carefully examined the whole of those papers for the purpose of selecting those which it was necessary that the chief constable should keep in his possession, and returning those which were immaterial—I returned very considerable quantity of those papers to George Palmer, the solicitor to the prisoner—among the papers which I saw and examined, I found no cheque which purported to be signed by the deceased Cook for 350 l . on Messrs; Weatherby—I found one cheque, but not on Messrs. Waatherby—I heard the witness Cheshire examined about the document which Palmer required him to attest—I found nothing of that sort—there was no acknowledgment purporting to be signed by Cook that bills to the amount of some thousand pounds had been accepted by Palmer for Cook's benefit—I saw George Palmer, the solicitor, after the papers which I had selected were returned to him.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. What is the name of your firm? A. Chubb, Beane, and Chubb—I know of Mr. Field, a detective officer, having been at Kugeley some time previous to the inquest—we were solicitors to the Prince of Wales Insurance Office—Inspector Field, on our employment for them, came down with me to Rugeley—he was at Rugeley merely a part of one day—he was at Stafford for I think three or four days altogether—he did not see the prisoner during his stay in Staffordshire—his visit had been preceded by that of another officer, named Simpson—I cannot tell of my own knowledge whether Simpson was for any time at Rugeley—he was there part of the day Field was there, and I was there also—I saw him at Stafford, but on no other occasion at Rugeley—that is all I can speak to of my own knowledge—he went from Stafford to Rugeley with myself and Mr. Field—he told me that he had seen Palmer before—I think Simpson-first came to Staffordshire on pur employment in the first week in October it must have been.

MR. JAMES . Q. You say that you were solicitors to the Prince of Wales; for what purpose was Field sent down? A. To make inquiries as to the habits of life of Mr. Walter Palmer, of whose death the office had shortly; before received notice, and also to inquire into the circumstances of a person of the name of George Bate, with reference to a proposal for an insurance of 25,000 l . on his life.

JOHN ESPIN . I am a solicitor practising in Davis-street, Berkeley squars—I am a solicitor for Mr. Pailwick—I produce a bill for 2,000 l ., which was placed in my hands by Mr. Pad wick to enforce payment from the prisoner—I do not know the prisoner's writing.

MR. STRAWBRIDGE . re-examined. The drawing and endorsing of this bill, and the name of "Wm. Palmer," is in the prisoner's writing—this accept ance, purporting to be signed "Sarah Palmer," is not in Sarah Palmer'a writing—( The bill being read, purported to be drawn by William Palmer on Mrs. Sarah Palmer, of Rugdey, dated 3 rd July , 1854, for 2,000 l . to the order of the drawer, three months after date. Accepted by Sarah Palmar, and endorsed, William Palmer. )

JOHN ESPIN . continued. This bill would be due on Oct. 6th, 1854—1,000 l . had been paid on that bill when it was placed in my hands—on 20th Nov., 1855, or about that period, the bill was placed in my hands, for the purpose of enforcing payment—I should say that it must have been placed in my hands about 12th Dec., because I signed judgment on that day, and issued the writ, therefore it must hare been only a day or two preview to 12th Dec.—I should think it was hardly so soon as 20th Nov., because I know I signed judgment within a day or two of it's being placed in my hands—I had not myself been making application for payment of the bill in Nov.—execution issued on 12th Dec.—I hare a letter here ( produced ) from William Palmer, addressed to Mr. Pad wick.

MR. STRAWRRIDGE . re-examined These two letters are in the writing of the prisoner—( read ; Nov. 12, 1855. To Mr. Padwick. Dear Sir,—I have inclosed you a cheque for the amount of your claim against me, and shall feel particularly obliged if you will not present it till the 28th. I am, dear Sir, yours truly, W. Palmer." The second letter bore no address, and was at follows ;" Dear Sir,—There is a mistake, as you have not had the 350 l .; but I will come up in a few days, and arrange that, and the cheque, I would have come up to-morrow, but am suffering from influenza. I am, dear Sir, youw truly. W. Palmer.")

MR. JAMES . to MR. ESPIN , Q. Have you got the cheque which that letter of 12th Nov. inclosed? A. Yes; this is it—it is for 1,000 l —it id dated the 28th—that cheque was mot paid—I have another cheque here, dated 8th Dec., for 600 l .

MR. STRAWBRIDGE . re-examined. This cheque is in Palmer's writing—( read: Dried Dec. 8 th , 1855, for 600 l . and payable to Mr. Padwick, of bearer. )

MR. ESPIN . continued. That cheque was not paid—by the date of it, I think it was sent a few days after the other cheque for 1,000 l ., was disho-noured—up to the date of the execution, which I sent down on the 12th, that 1,000 l . still remained due—the execution was a casa against his person—that realized nothing—he was taken on that casa.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. When did you first see the cheque of Dec. 8th? A. A day or two before 12th Dec.—that was placed in my hands—I will not be positive, but I believe all the documents were placed in my hands together.

MR. JAMES . Q. One question I have omitted; do not tell me what occurred, but was an action brought against the mother on this hill? A. There was—I have got the papers here.

WILLIAM BAMFORD . I am a surgeon and apothecary, at Rugeley, in Staffordshire. I first saw the deceased, John Parsons Cook, on Saturday, 17th Nov.—William Palmer called on me to attend on a friend of his, who was unwell, at the Talbot Arms—I walked down with him—he said that Cook had been dining with him the day before, and had taken too much wine, champagne—I saw Cook, and asked him as to his having taken too much wine the day before, and he assured me that he had taken but two glasses—I found no appearance of bile which he threw off while I saw him, but a constant vomiting—( The COURT . considered that anything respecting the symptoms had better be avoided now )—Mr. Palmer had been called up to him that morning, at 6 o'clock—I prescribed a saline effervescing draught for him, a six ounce mixture—on my second visit to him on the Monday evening, I prescribed some pills for him—the medicine and the pills I pre pared for him while Mr. Palmer stopped at my house—he stopped, I pre pared the pills, and he took them away.

Q. But I am speaking of Monday, when Palmer was not there? A. On the Monday; what I prepared on Monday I took myself, both the medi cine, which I gave him in the morning, and the pills in the evening I took down to the Talbot Arms, and gave them to the servant myself, the servant who had been waiting on him, but I cannot say her name—I saw her take the medicine up stairs myself—it was a servant maid—on the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, I prepared the same pills—I saw Palmer on the Tuesday morning; I was going down to see the patient, and he met me, and told me that there was no necessity—I asked him if he had seen Mr. Cook the night before—he said that he saw him between 9 and 10 o'clock, and was with him for half an hour—he requested that I would not go to disturb him, as he did not wish me to see him, and I went home without seeing him—Palmer met me again between 12 and 1 o'clock—I was then going to see Palmer, and he stopped me, and told me that he did not wish him disturbed.

COURT . Q. Were you going to see Palmer or Cook? A. I was going to see Palmer again, and he said that he did not wish him disturbed.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Do you mean Palmer or Cook? A. mean Cook—Palmer said that he was still quiet, and he did not, wish him disturbed—at 7 o'clock that evening, Palmer came up to my house again and requested me to go down and see him again—that was the first time I saw him on Tuesday—after I had seen Cook, I went out with Mr. Jones and Mr. William Palmer, but when I saw Mr. Cook I found him in a most ex cited state—having seen him I walked out with Mr. Jones and Palmer, and Palmer said that he should rather wish him to have his pills again, and he walked up with me to my house for them, and waited by while I prepared them—I prepared them in my surgery, and he stood by and saw me weigh the ingredients out—I had strychnia in my private room, but not in my shop—I keep it in a cupboard in my private room, not in my shop—after I had made up the pills I wrote a direction—"Night Pills, John Parsons Cook, Esq.," on the box—I wrote the "Night Pills" on all the four nights—the first night I wished but one pill to be given—on the Tuesday night, before I wrote the direction, Mr. Palmer requested that I would put a direction on, nothing more, and he saw me write the direction—he said, "Will you put a direction on?"—I do not know that anything passed between us—he took them away with him—nothing more passed between us than "Will you put a direction on them?"—I never saw Cook alive after between 7 and 8 o'clock—it

was between 7 and 8 o'clock when Mr. Palmer carried off the pills—I cannot say more—I lapped the direction and the box up in a separate paper, and sealed it before I gave it to him—I put no impression, nothing more than the sealing wax at each end of the box—"Night Pills" was written on the outside paper—the paper was lapped up, and an outside paper beside—the direction was on a separate paper, not round the box—there was nothing written on the box—I took the direction, folded it in a piece under the box, and then lapped it up in a separate piece of paper—the piece of paper on which the direction was written, was a separate piece—it was between the box and the outer coyer—I sealed the two ends of the outer paper on each end of the box—nothing was written on the outside paper—I think it was as near to 20 minutes past 12 o'clock as could be, that I saw Cook dead—I understood that he was alive when they came up for me, and I could not have been above five or ten minutes before I was down there—I found the body stretched out as straight as could be, on his heels and his back, with each arm in a rigid state on each side of him—he was stretched out with his legs extended, and on his heels and the back of his head, as straight as possible and stiff—there was nothing unnatural in the position of the body that I saw, more than that his arms were extended down each side of his body, and both his hands stretched as mine are—I gave it as my opinion that he died from apoplexy—I filled a certificate up, and gave it as my opinion that he died of apoplexy—Mr. Palmer asked me to fill up that certificate—I have the forms in my possession—I told Mn Palmer, when he asked me, that it was his place, as he was his patient, to have filled that cer tificate up, but he said that he had much rather I did it, and so I did—I was present at the post mortem examination—after it was over, Palmer said we ought not to have let that jar go—his words were "We ought not to have let that jar go"—he did not say more.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. How far is your house from Mr. Palmer's house; I recollect that it is a very short distance, but how far is it? A. Perhaps 200 yards.

THOMAS PRATT . I am a solicitor, in practice in Queen-street, May fair. I was acquainted with the prisoner, William Palmer—my acquaintance with him commenced in the latter end of 1853—I first obtained for him a loan of 1,000 l ., which was ultimately paid in the end of Nov., 1853—in Oct., 1854, I was employed by him to make a claim on two policies, on the life of Anne Palmer, 5,000 l . from the Sun, and 3,000 l . from the Norwich Union—I received the monies on his account—the money was applied in payment of three bills, I think amounting to perhaps 3,500 l . or 4,000 l . which was due on acceptances and loans, subsequently obtained, after I made the claim on the policy—there was 1,500 l . of that money not so applied—6,500 l . was applied in payment of those loans, and the 1,500 l . was allowed to stand over, he receiving the money—it was applied as he requested, for his purposes, without payment of any liabilities—in April, 1855, he made an application for a loan of 2,000 l .—I am not aware that he stated the purpose for which the loan was required; no horses were men-tioned—I obtained that loan on the security of a bill drawn by himself, for 2,000 l ., and accepted by Sarah Palmer—I now produce eight bills, which on 20th Nov., were held by myself, or clients of mine, who had advanced money on them—four were held by my clients, and four by myself—there were two bills overdue at that time—(These bills were here put in and read; they all purported to be drawn by William Palmer, upon and accepted by Sarah Palmer, payable to the order of the drawer, ana endorsed by William Palmer, and were of the following dates and amounts: 5th June , 1854, for

500 l .; July 2 nd , 1854, for 1,000 l .; July 22 nd , 1855, for 2,000 l .; July 24 th , 1855, for 2,000 l .; Sept. 27 th , 1855, for 1,000 l .; 29 th , 1855, for 2,000 l .; Oct. 2nd, 1855, for 2,000 l . and Oct. 12 th , 1855, for 2,000 l .; all three months)— of those bills, two of 2,000 l . each, due respectively 25th and 27th Oct., I believe, were the only bills which were due at the period alluded to, 20th Nov.—the others had been renewed, with the exception of one for 500 l . and 1,000 l ., which were held over from month to month, and the interest for holding these bills over, was to be paid to me from month to month—these bills, with two exceptions, were discounted at the rate of sixty per cent, including costs—those exceptions were forty per cent, that was only on two occasions, and not continued—on 9th Nov., the interest for the holding over of those bills was due—I remember the death of Walter Palmer—that occurred in Aug. of last year—I was instructed by the pri soner to make a claim on the Prince of Wales Office for a sum of money on the policy on his life—the amount I claimed was 13,000 l —Sarah Palmer is the prisoner's mother, from time to time I addressed letters to her while I was the holder of these bills—on the 16th Sept, 1855, I wrote a letter to the prisoner.

CAPT. HATTON . re-examined. These letters were found amongst the pri soner's papers—they have been in my custody ever since—(The following letters were here read ;"London, Sept 18, 1855. Dear Sir (Bates's insur ance),—I send you on the other side the copy of a letter from Mr. Gill Let me have an answer to it") ("P. of W. I have an acknowledgment of the papers, but not a word more.") ("Cook's assignment: I do not want an affidavit of the execution of the warrant of attorney, but of the bill of sale. Ask Mr. Smith to make the affidavit I now enclose, and return it to me. If you are now quite settled, on your return from Doncaster, do, pray, think about your three bills, so shortly becoming due. If I do not get a positive appointment from the office (the Prince of Wales) to pay, which I do not expect, you must be prepared to meet them, as agreed. You told me your mother was coming up this month, and would settle them. Yours, truly, Thomas Pratt W. Palmer, Esq., Rugeley.")

THOMAS PRATT . continued. The P. of W. (Prince of Wales), is the office in which I was claiming the 13,000 l . for the prisoner, on Walter Palmer's death—about the 24th I addressed this letter to the prisoner—("London, 24th Sept, 1855. My dear Sir,—You are aware there are three bills of 2,000 l . each, accepted by your mother, Mrs. Sarah Palmer, falling due in a day or two. Now, as the 13,000 l . cannot be received from the Prince of Wales office for three months to come, it will be necessary that these bills should be renewed. I will therefore thank you to send me up three new acceptances, to meet those coming due, and which, when they fall due, I pre sume, the money from the office will be ready to meet, which will leave 1,500 l . more than your mother has given acceptances for. Yours, &c., Thomas Pratt W. Palmer, Esq. Rugeley. P. S.: Please let me hear by return of post.") ("Oct. 2,1855. Dear Sir,—Gill is out of town; in a few days he will return, when I will see him.—(P. of W.) As I somewhat anticipated (read the copy of a letter inclosed, which I received last night), we can do nothing until the 24th, and even then I doubt if any steps can be taken until after three months from the day of proof of death. This, you will observe, quite alters arrangements; and I, therefore, must request you to make preparations for meeting the two bills due at the end of this month. I will not flag in my exertions to'get the claim on the policy settled; but I cannot now urge the possible receipt of this money in three months' time, if at all. You must be perfectly able to judge of the facts the office are possessed of to induce

them to avoid payment, but as yet it won't do simply to say they must pay, but we must try and make them. In any event, bear in mind you must be prepared to cover your mother's two acceptances for the 4,000 l . due at the end of the month. Yours, &c., Thomas Pratt. W. Palmer, Esq., Rugeley.") (Inclosure, "Prince of Wales Life Assurance Society, 105, Regent-street, 1st Oct., 1855. Sir,—My board are entirely dissatisfied with the claim to which you allude, and refer you to their solicitors, Messrs. Chubb, Deane, and Chubb, 13, South-square, Gray's Inn. Yours, &c. John Hornby, Secretary and Actuary. Thomas Pratt, Esq., &c") ("London, 6th Oct., 1855. Prince of Wales Policy. My dear Sir,—I have been too unwell for the last two days to attend much to business, but have written to the solicitors, asking for the cause of dissatisfaction. I much fear you will have to litigate it. I have your note acknowledging the receipt by your mother of 2,000£ acceptance, due the 2nd of Oct Why not let her acknowledge it herself? You really must 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 so much as it is worth, but in the present proceeding neither I nor any one, except your mother, who is liable on the bills, can look upon it as a security. Don't neglect attending to this, for under the recent Act, bills of exchange are now recovered in a few days. You know and can appreciate my conduct in avoiding all trouble and annoyance to your mother, but to that there is a limit; and I cannot by any representation be a party to inducing any one to believe security exists, if there be any doubt upon the point Yours, (&c, Thomas Pratt P. S.—I cast no doubt on the capability of the office to pay, but in the nature of things, and so large an amount in question, it is not to be surprised at if they think they have ground of objec tion, that they should temporize by delay.")—I had written to Mrs. Palmer, and received the following letter from the prisoner—("Rugeley, 5th Oct, 1855. My dear Sir,—My mother desires me to acknowledge your letter containing the bill I would like you to see Messrs. Chubb, and hear what they have got to say, and write me. I will try and come and see you. Yours, &c., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq. P. S.—I do hope you will be able to complete Bates's assurance.") ("London, Oct. 10th, 1855. Prince of Wales Policy. Dear Sir,—On the other side I send you a copy of the solicitor's reply. I may add that I hear the office has been making inquiry in every direction, but what their grounds of dissatisfaction are is as yet a mystery. In any case, no steps can be taken to compel payment till after the 4th Dec. Gill has not yet returned. I have again to call your attention to the publication of the assignment or bill of sale signed by you on the 1st and registered on the 2nd inst., to secure 1,000 l ., and given to Mr. Sergeant Here again is a cause of complaint; however, not to repeat what I said in my last, but with a view of pressing upon you the remembrance that the two bills due on 24th and 27th must be met I say no more. The 2,000 l . acceptance of your mother's, due the 29th Dec., I sent her yesterday: it was renewed by the second of the three sent me up. You had better com municate with her in time, and write to me without delay; but as I pre sume you are at Newmarket, it will not be for a day or two. Yours, &c., Thomas Pratt To William Palmer, Esq.") (Inclosure: "Re Walter Palmer's Policy. No. 13, South-square, Gray's Inn, Oct. 9th, 1855. Sir,—We have to acknowledge your letter, and regret we cannot give you any reply till our Mr. Deane's return from the country, as he attends to the matter. Yours, &c., Chubty Deane, and Chubb. Thomas Pratt, Esq.")

("London, 18th Got, 1855. Dear Sir,—I have your telegraph, and hope the illness of your mother is not serious. In case I do not see you to morrow I send you copies of two letters I have received. As regards the first, it shows how important it is that you or your mother should prepare for payment of the 4,000 l . due in a few days. I cannot now obtain delay on the same grounds I did the others, for then I should have no ground for supposing the claim would not be admitted * * * Let me urge upon you the necessity of the arrangement I allude to above, and believe me that I shall be very sorry to have any annoying steps to take. I should, for the present, keep my own counsel about the office; the offer to repay the premium shows they are not so strong as they would have you suppose. I shall not reply till I hear from you. Yours, etc., Thomas Pratt Wm. Palmer, Esq., Rugeley.") Copy of letter. ("14, South-square, Gray's Inn, 16th Oct., 1855. He Walter Palmer's Policy. Sir,—We regret that your letter of the 16th instant, owing to the absence of our Mr. Deane, should remain so long unanswered. The directors, after a full investigation of all the circumstances connected with the life and death of Mr. Walter Palmer, have, under our advice, come to the determination to decline to pay this claim. Although the facts disclosed are such as to warrant the retention of the premium, the directors will be prepared to refund the amount to any person who can be shown to be legally entitled to it.")—On the 27th of Oct. Palmer called upon me, and paid me 250 l . on account of the principal of the two bills then due—he said I should have a further payment in the course of a few days, that he would send me another sum of 250 l . on the following Wednesday, and would pay the remainder of the principal as soon as possible—I wrote a letter to Palmer on 27th Oct.—I believe I posted it myself—( Capt. Hotton stated that no-such letter was found. )—I received this letter in answer—("Rugeley, Oct. 28, 1855. My dear Sir,—I will send you 250 l . from Worcester on Tuesday, as arranged. For goodness sake do not think of write. Only let me know that such steps are going to be taken, and I will get the money, even if I pay 1,000 l . for it Only give me a fair chance, and you shall be paid the whole amount of your money. Do not see the proctor till I see you again. Yours, etc., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq.") ("London, Oct 31, 1855. Dear Sir,—The 250 l . registered letter was received to day. With it I have been enabled to obtain consent to the following, that with the exception of issuing the writs against your mother, no proceedings as to service shall be taken till the morning of the 10th of next month, when you are to send up 1,000 l . or 1,500 l ., you will be debited with a month's interest on the 4,000 l . out of the money sent up. Walter Palmer's Administration. Let me know your objection to my seeing the proctor. There should be no delay herein. I must impress upon you the necessity of being punctual as to the bilk You will not forget also the 1,500 l . bill due the 9th of Nov. Yours, etc., Thomas Pratt W. Palmer, Esq., Rugeley.")—The next letter is without date, but it must have been written on the 8th Nov.—("My dear Sir,—I will be with you on Saturday next at half-past one. Yours, etc., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq.")—On the 6th of Nov., I issued writs against the prisoner and his mother for 4,000 l ., on the two bills—I sent them down to Mr. Cramp, a solicitor at Rugeley—on the 10th Nov., Palmer called on me—I have a letter without date, which, I believe, I received on the 9th—it is from Palmer, saying that he would be with me on the following Saturday at half-past one o'clock—on the 10th Palmer called and paid me 300 l ., which, with the two sums of 250 l . received before, made 800 l .—200 l . was deducted for discount, leaving 600 l . for the principal—I think he was to

endeavour to forward me further sums, but no definite sum was mentioned—I do not know whether any conversation took place about the writs—no doubt they were mentioned—I think he knew the writs had gone down on the 13th I wrote to Palmer—("Prince of Wales Policy. London, Nov, 13, 1855. Dear Sir,—The case will be laid before Kelly to morrow. Curiously enough, I find that the great point with the office is, that your brother had delirium tremens more than once, say three or four times, before his life was accepted, and that actually the medical man, Dr. Hastings, reported against the life as well as Mr. Waddell. I think I shall be able to get a copy of the proposal through a friend The opinion of several actuaries is, that the Company have not a leg to stand on. The fact of the enormous premium will go a great way to give us a verdict. After hearing what Earwaker has to say, you do not, I presume, wish me to delay seeing and instructing the proctor. I shall therefore do so at once, to avoid delay I count most positively on seeing you on Saturday. Do, for both of our sakes, make the amount up to 1,000 l .; without it I cannot arrange to renew the 1,500 l . bill due the 9th. Tours, etc., Thomas Pratt W. Palmer, Esq., Kugeley.") ("Rugeley, 16th Nov., 1855. My dear Sir,—I am obliged to come to Tattersall's on Monday to the settling, so I shall not call and see you before Monday; but a friend will call upon you, and give you 200 l . to-morrow, and I will give you the remainder on Monday.—Yours, &c., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq.")—a person called on me on the Saturday, and gave me a cheque for 200 l .—I don't know his name—I afterwards received the following letter:—("Rugeley, Sunday, 18th Nov. My dear Sir,—All being well, I will be with you to-morrow, Monday, but I cannot say what time now. Fisher left the 200 l . for me. Tours, (fee., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq.")—Monday, the 19th, was the settling day after Shrews bury races—Palmer called on me on the 19th, I think after three o'clock—he signed a paper drawn up by myself on that day—the following is the memorandum which was drawn up—("November 19th, 1855. Memor andum. Dear Sir,—You will place the 50 l . I hare just paid you to the 450 l . you will receive from Mr. Herring, together 500 l . and the 200 l . you received Saturday towards the payment of my mother's acceptance of 2,000 l . on the 25th Oct., making paid to this day the sum of 1,300 l . W. Palmer.")—the prisoner gave me a 20 l . cheque, and 30 l . in notes—the 450 l . mentioned is what he said I should receive through the post from a Mr. Herring—I afterwards received this cheque of 450 l . from Herring, and paid it into my bankers—that made his payments 1,500 l . on account of the 2,000 l . bill—("Rugeley, 21st Nov. My dear Sir,—Ever since I saw you I have been fully engaged with Cook, and not able to leave him, and I am sorry to say that, after all, he died this day; so you had better write to Saunders; but, mind you, I must have Polestar if it can be so arranged, and should any one call upon you to know what money or moneys Cook had from you, don't answer the question till I have seen you. I will send you 75 l . to morrow. As soon as I have been at Manchester, you shall hear about other monies. I have sat up two full nights with Cook, and am very much tired out—Tours, &c., W. Palmer. Thomas Pratt, Esq.") ("London, 22nd Nov., 1855. Dear Sir,—I have your note, and am greatly disappointed at the non-receipt of the money as promised, and at the vague assurances as to any money. I can understand, it is true, that your being detained by the illness of your friend has been the cause of not sending up a larger amount, but the smaller sum you ought to have sent; if anything unpleasant occurs, you must thank yourself. The death of Mr. Cook will now compel you to look about as to the payment of the 500 l . bill due on the 2nd of

December. I have written Saundera, informing him of my claim, and requesting to know by return what claim he has for keep and training. I send down copy of bill of sale to Cramp, to see it enforced. Yours, &c., Thomas Pratt W. Palmer, Esq., Rugeley.") ("22nd Nov. My dear Sir,—Messrs. Weatherby, of No. 6, Old Burlington-street, will forward you a cheque for 75 l . in the morning, Friday. In haste, yours, W. Palmer.") ("23rd Nov. My dear Sir,—I will come up either to morrow, or Monday. Youre, W. Palmer. T. Pratt, Esq.")—On 24th, I saw him, and he signed this paper, the body of which is in my writing ( read : "I have paid you this day 100 l . (one hundred pounds). 75 l . you will pay for renewals of 1,500 l . due the 9th of November, for one month, and 25 l . on account of 2,000 l . due the 25th of October, making 1,325 l . paid on that account Signed, W. Palmer.")—I had received the cheque for 75 l . from Messrs. Weatherby—it has not been paid—it was refused—I received this letter from Palmer on the 26th of Nov.—("Strictly private and confidential My dear Sir,—Should any of Cook's friends call upon you to know what money Cook ever had from you, pray don't answer that question or any other about money matters until I have seen you. And oblige, yours, faithfully, William Palmer.")—There was a bill of sale on Polctar and another horse of Cook's, called Sirius—I did not know Cook—I never saw him—Palmer transacted the loan that was to be made on the bill of sale—on acceptance for 500 l . was sent to me through the post, without any drawer's name, I think—this is the bill of sale—( read; Dated 6th Sept. , 1855, assigning Polestar and Sirius to Pratt for the loan of 500 l .)—I received this letter of 26th August—( read : "26th Aug. My dear Sir,—You cannot for one single moment think of having Salt's deeds now that Walter is dead, and you have an extra security for 13,000 l ., and only owing you 11,500 l ., and out of this you will have to give me the difference between 1,030 l . and 2,000 l . There cannot be a single quibble with the Prince of Wales, provided they can pay their portion of the money. Everything is perfectly straightforward; it is not like the assignment in the Norwich. The only question is, can the Prince of Wales pay. Now, I want, and must have it from somewhere, 1,000 l . clear by next Saturday, without fail, and you can raise it on the policy if you like, and it must he had at a much less rate of interest than I have hitherto had it, because the security is so very good; and, if you cannot manage, you must he me have the policy, because you have plenty of security for your money, independent of deeds or anything else, and then I shall have no trouble in getting the money by the time I require it Of course, I will then, if you wish it, make an assignment of the policy. Tou will have to hand me the difference of the 2,000 l . bill, after deducting the money for the renewal of the 1,500 l . If you will send me the doctor's certificate from the Prince of Wales, I will get it filled up, and send it you back with the other certificates. I am, dear Sir, waiting your reply, Yours faithfully, W. Palmer. T. Pratt, Esq.")—On 30th Aug. I received this letter—("My dear Sir,—I will come up on Saturday morning, and you must, if you please, be prepared to let me have the money on the policy on Saturday next, ox let me have the policy and assignment; then I shall have no difficulty in getting it You will have, also, to hand me the balance of the 2,000 l . bill, minus the amount of the renewal of the 1,500 l . bill I have undertaken to get the enclosed bill cashed for Mr. Cook. You had the 200 l . bill of his. He is a very good and responsible man. Will you do it? I will put my name to the bill")—The acceptance of Mr. Cook for 500 l . was enclosed in that—("16th Sept, 1855,

My dear Sir,—I received the cheque for the 100 l ., and will thank you to let I me have the 315 l . by return of post, if possible; if not, send it me (certain) by Sunday night's post, to the post office, Doncaster. I now return you Cook's papers signed, &c., and he wants the money on Saturday, if he can have it, but I have not promised it for Saturday. I told him he should have it on Tuesday morning, at Doncaster; so please inclose it with mine, in cash, in a registered letter, and he must pay for it being regis tered. Do not let it be later than Monday night's post to Doncaster,") ("9th Sept, 1855. You must send me for Mr. Cook, by Monday night's post, to the post-office, Doncaster, 385 l . instead of 375 l ., and the wine war rant, so that I can hand it to him with the 375 l ., and that will be allowing you 50 l . for the discount, &c. I shall then get 10 l . and I expect I shall have to take to the wine, and give him the money; but I shall not do so if you do not send me 385 l ., and be good enough to enclose ny 315 l . with it, in cash in a registered letter, and direct it to me at the post office, Don caster. I will send you the proposal. Have you heard from the Prince of Wales? Yours, William Palmer.") ("10th Sept, 1855. I enclose you 300 l . in notes, a cheque for Cook for 375 l ., and the wine warrant. You know by this time that if I do what I can to accommodate you, there is a limit to my means to do so, and more particularly as in this instance you have been the means of shutting up a supply I could generally go to. I think, also, you had little reason to allude to the 10 l . difference, after the trouble, correspondence, &c., I had with respect to a second insurance you know of, which, although it did not come off , arose not from any lack of industry on my part I have no reply as yet from the Prince of Wales. When shall I see you about the three 2,000 l . bills coming due at the end of this month? I speak in time, in order that you may be prepared in cue anything untoward happens with the Prince of Wales.* * * I am obliged to send a cheque for Cook, as I have not received the money, which I shall do, no doubt, to-morrow.")—I enclosed in that letter 300 l . in notes, the cheque for 375 l ., payable to Mr. Cook, and the wine warrant—the 375 l . cheque and the wine warrant was the consideration for the bill of sale, and for Mr. Cook's acceptance for the 500 l .—the other 300 l . had nothing to do with Mr. Cook's transaction—this is Palmer's letter acknowledging the receipt—it has no date—("My dear Sir,—I received your letter this morning con taining 300 l ., and 375 l . and wine warrant, for which I am much obliged")—I am not aware that I ever saw or spoke to Mr. Cook in my life—besides this transaction with Cook for the 500 l . there was one other before that of 200 l .—that was an acceptance of Mr. Cook's—that bill was paid—besides those two I had no pecuniary transaction whatever with Mr. Cook, in which his name was involved—the first transaction about the 200 l . was either the end of April or beginning of May, 1855—it was a bill drawn by Palmer on Cook, and paid by Mr. Cook.

MR. STEVENS . re-examined. The endorsement upon this cheque for 375 l . is not in the handwriting of Mr. Cook—the signature is, "J. P. Cook"—I never knew him write his name in any other way than "J. Parsons Cook."

MR. STRAWBRIDGE . re-examined. None of these acceptances, purporting to be the signature of Sarah Palmer, are in her handwriting—Palmer had an account at the Kugeley Bank at the time this 375 l . cheque was drawn—I cannot tell whether that cheque was paid into our bank to his credit—the book is in court—I can only prove remitting it.

WILLIAM CHESHIRE . I have been a clerk in the National Provincial Bank at Rugeley, but I am not at present—I was so in the month of Sept

last—William Palmer had an account with the bank—I received this cheque for 375 l . from Henry Cockayne, a groom of Palmer's—it Was carried to Palmer's credit—our bank received the proceeds.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHER . Q. Did you know Mr. Cook at ail at the bank? A. did not—he had no transactions with us.

THOMAS PRATT . Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. I will call your attention first to the last transaction which has been mentioned, but the earliest one in date, of May, 1855—in May, 1855, previowly to that first transaction, you knew nothing at all about Cook, did you? A. Nothing whatever—I had a sum of 310 l . in my hands due to Pahner, and Palmer wished me to add to thai a sum of 190 l . to pay a sum of 500 l . to a person of the name of Sargent—I declined to do that without further security, and he then proposed an acceptance of Cook—I did not then make inquiries about Cook—he represented Cook at that time to be a gentleman of respect-ability and substance, and upon his representation I agreed to accept a bill drawn by him on Cook for 200 l ., and to make the advance necessary to pay Sargent; and so he got the 500 l . that he wanted.

Q. Did Cook ever complain to you that he did not receive any money on that mortgage transaction of his two race horses? A. I never saw Cook—he did not complain by letter—on the first transaction I wrote to Cook, sending him the 200 l ., acceptance; and just before his death I Wrote to him, calling on him for payment—I have not the letter—I hare not a copy of it—I do not hold a bill of his for 200 l ., which I had discounted—the 200 l . was paid in July by Cook, and I returned him the acceptance—I wrote to him, I think it was on the 13th Nov., not later I think, reminding him that the 500 l . was due on the 2nd Dec;—I sent that to Lutterworth—I addressed it to Lutterworth—I did not know Mr. Jones of Lutterworth—I don't think I addressed it to the care of Mr. Jones—I simply addressed it to Mr. Cook.

MR. ATTORNHY-GENERAL . Q. The first 200 l . bill was not paid when it was due; was it? A. It was due, I think, on the 29th June, and it was not paid—after that I wrote to Mr. Cook for payment, and he came up and paid it himself on the 2nd July—I was not in the way—I did not see him when the 200 l . was paid.

MR. SEHJEANT SHEE .; Q. Do you happen to know how Mr. Cook and Palmer stood as to the winnings on the Shrewsbury races? A. have not the slightest idea.

JOHN ARMISHAW . I am an attorney in practice at Rugeley—on or about the 12th Nov. last I was employed to apply to Palmer for the payment of a debt of about 60 l ., due to Messrs. Hopkins and Bown, mercers ami drapers at Rugeley—on the 19th of that same month I sent up instructions for a writ—on the following morning, the 20th, Bown sent me to Palmer—I went to the prisoner, at his house, and he paid me the money, two 50 l . notes—he said nothing about them—it was in satisfaction of the debt—he said so, and he hoped they would not make him pay the' costs—one was a Bank of England note, and the other a local note—I took the money for Bown, and told him to go and take the change and receipt, and settle with him about the costs.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. What time in the day was this? A. About 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning.

JOHN WALLBANK . I am a butcher, at Rugeley. I remember, in Nov. last, Palmer's man, Bates, coming to me to fetch me to Palmer—I do not recollect tlie day of the month, but it was on a Monday—it wad the Shrews bury race week—I wont to Palmer's house, and saw him there—he said;

"Wallbank, I want you to lend me 25 l ."—I said, "Doctor, I am very short' of money, but I will try if I can get it"—he said, "Do, that ia a good fellow; I will give it you again on Saturday morning;" and he did so—he said he should receive some money, or see a friend, at Shrewsbury, and he would give it me again on Saturday morning—I met him in the street on the Saturday, accidentally—he desired me to follow him to his house—I went, and he paid me the money, I cannot exactly say what in.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Has Palmer lent you money sometimes? A. Yes, frequently—when I have asked him he has never refused me—we were always on friendly terms—Mrs. Palmer, the mother, lived in the town, in a large house, near the Church—the prisoner was frequently in the habit of going there—I have seen him go there; I could not say how many times a week—I have walked up with him when he has been going home.

JOHN SPILSBURY . I am a farmer, and reside near Stafford. I had deal ings with the prisoner, Palmer—in Nov. last he was in my debt 46 l . 2 s .—I called upon him on Thursday, 22nd Nov., at his house, and he paid the amount with a Bank of England note for 50 l .—I called casually—I believe I had not applied to him for the money before that.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. I dare say he had owed you more money than that on previous occasions? A. That was the first trans action I ever had with him.

MR. STRAWBRIDGE . re-examined. I have a copy of Palmer's account here, which I examined myself, but I can speak positively without the copy—on 19th Nov. there was 9 l . 6 s . in his favour—he did not pay in any money about that period, or shortly after that—nothing was paid to the credit of his account after that time—the last payment to the credit of his account was on 10th Oct., 50 l .—before the 50 l . was paid in, the account was creditor.

HERBERT, WRIGHT . I am a solicitor, in partnership with my brother, at Birmingham. I have known Palmer, the prisoner, since July, 1851—in Nov., 1855, he was indebted to my brother in 10,400 l .—I had a bill of sale upon bis property—this is the bill of sale, in the name of my brother—it is executed by Palmer—( This was dated 5 th May , 1855, purporting to be an absolute sale of Palmer's property to Edwin, Wright, of Birmingham, in con-sideration of the sum 6,500 l . then due, and 2,300 l . to be advanced )—there were race-horses assigned—it is an absolute bill of sale of all he had, subject to redemption on the payment of certain moneys, with a power of sale—the horses he had, Chicken, Nettle, and others, are in the sche-dule—this sum, which this bill of sale was to secure, had been advanced upon bills—all the advances were made upon bills—the whole debt con-sisted of advances on bills, together with other securities—the bills are all here—they purport to be accepted by the mother, Sarah Palmer—they run over a period from 5th June, 1854, to 12th Oct.—there are bills to the value of 6,500 l ., purporting to be the acceptances of Sarah Palmer—here is a bill which was given contemporaneously with the execu-tion of the bill of sale—it bears the liability alone of William Palmer for 2,300 l .—that is the sum specified there to be advanced; and there is the acceptance of William Palmer for 1,600 l ., making with the bills you have, the 10,400 l £—I was not pressing Palmer for the payment of those bills during the month of Oct.—I was in the early part of Nov.—many of these bills, which were over-due, remained over-due, and no renewals were taken in many instances—as between Palmer and my brother, this money was not considered to be due until the Cambridgeshire Newmarket meet

ing terminated—I should say the money was due the first or second week in Nov.—he always said that was the time at which the money would be paid, that is, at the latter end of Oct., or some time in the early part of Nov.; I would rather say, if you please, the first or second week in Nov.—I do not consider that I was entitled to ask for payment earlier—before 20th Nov. I had certainly pressed him for payment—I put this bill of sale in force in Dec.—I hardly remember the day—it was after the Coro ner's verdict had been returned—I was present when his property was taken—I did not take any papers of his at all, or find any papers.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Was an auctioneer sent down to seize? A. A sheriffs officer—the auctioneer followed after the seizure had been effected—we took possession of a good deal of property there—there was never any proposal to put the thing off, and take the interest—if there had been, I hardly know what I should bare done—pro bably we should not have objected to let the thing go on a little longer, holding the security, if the interest had been forthcoming—I was not hostile to him.

Q. I believe you had also, upon his introduction, accommodated Mr. Cook? A. Certainly not, not at any time—I had not, upon bis introduc tion, accommodated Mr. Cook with money—I had offered to do it, but the transaction never assumed completion—Mr. Cook saw me, I believe, on 14th Sept.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. My friend asked you whether, supposing Palmer had proposed to you to renew this security, or carry it on without renewal, on the payment of interest, you would have consented to do so; you said, "Yes, if the interest had been forthcoming;" I want to know what would have been the amount? A. These bills were discounted at sixty per cent per annum—if they had been to be renewed, it would very likely have been the same rate of interest.

Q. At all events not much less? A. I do not think that it ia likely.

MR. STRAWERIDGE . re-examined , These acceptances to the bills produced by Mr. Wright are certainly not Mrs. Sarah Palmer's handwriting.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Have you any of Mrs. Sarah Palmer's handwriting here? A. I have not—this is very different from it—I know it is not her writing—it is an imitation, but a very faint imi-tation—it could not deceive me for a minute—I should not pay a cheque signed in that way without confirmation.

Adjourned.

Wednesday, May 21.

CHABLES WEATHERBY . re-examined. I stated when I was examined the other day, that on the 21st of November I received a letter from the prisoner enclosing a cheque for 350 l . I did not produce that letter on that occasion, I was not asked for it—I have it here—( read : "Rugeley, 20th Nov., 1855. Gentlemen,—I will thank you to send me a cheque for the amount of the enclosed order. Mr. Cook has been confined here to his bed for the last three days, with a bilious attack, which has prevented his being in town. Yours respectfully, William Palmer. 'Mr. Cook, Rugeley,' will find him for the present.")—I received, on the morn ing of the 23rd, this other letter from the prisoner—( read : "Gentle men,—he good enough, on receipt of this, to send a cheque for 75 l . to Thomas Pratt, Esq., 5, Queen-street, Mayfair; also a cheque for 100 l . to Thomas Earwaker, Esq., Inland Revenue, Somerset House; and deduct

the fame from the amount of Mr. Cook's draft. And I am, Gentle men, yours respectfully, William Palmer. Rugeley, 22nd Nov. 1855.") On the 23rd I sent a letter by post to the prisoner: this ( produced ) is a corrected draught of it ( read : "6, Old Burlington-street, 23rd Nov., 1855. Sir,—We return Mr. Cook's cheque, not having funds enough to meet it When Mr. Frail called to-day to settle the Shrewsbury stake account, he informed us that he had paid Mr. Cook his winnings there. We could not comply with your request, as to paying part of the money, even if we had sufficient in hand to pay the sums you mention, which we have not Be so good as to acknowledge the receipt of the cheque. Your obedient servants, a and J. Weatherby. To W. Palmer, Esq.") On the following day—the 24th, this notice, signed by the prisoner, was left at my office ( read ; "Messrs. Weatherby, 6, Old Burlington-street, 24th Nov., 1855 Gentlemen,—I hereby request you will not part with any monies in your hands or which may come into your hands, on account of John Parsons Cook, to any person, until payment, by you to me, or my order, of the cheque or draft in my favour given by the said J. P. Cook, for the sum of 350 l . sent to you by me, and acknowledged in your letter received by me at Rogeley on Wednesday morning, the 20th of this month of November. Yours, &c., W. Palmer.") I also sent a letter, on the 23rd, by post to Cook, at Kugeley—it was subsequently returned to me through the Dead Letter Office.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE , Q. You know the handwriting of Mr. Cook? A. Yes—that cheque was written by him ( the cheque for 350 l .), as far as I recollect.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Was your attention particularly drawn to it? A. No, it was not—I have not any recollection whether it was signed J. P. Cook, or J. Parsons Cook.

COURT . Q. Did you examine the handwriting? A. Not particularly—I observed the body of the cheque was not in Cook's handwriting, but the signature I took to be his.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. When that cheque was presented, you had not funds of Mr. Cook's in hand to meet it? A. No; I expected to have received them from Mr. Frail, the clerk of the course at Shrewsbury—they were not eventually sent.

Q. Supposing that Mr. Frail had any money as clerk of the course to pay to Mr. Cook, ought they, in the ordinary course of things, to have been there on the day you received the cheque? A. That I cannot answer absolutely; some clerks of the course, at the different races, when they have to settle accounts with us, do it immediately, and some do it after a few days—there is no time that the money ought to have been there—it was a week after Mr. Cook had won, and it was reasonable to expect it to have been there—I cannot tell you any more—I informed Mr. Palmer, when I did not pay his cheque, of my reason for not paying it—he afterwards insisted, in the notice read, that we should not part with the money to any body else.

JOHNSON ROGERSON BUTLER . I attend races and bet upon commission—I was at the Shrewsbury races—I had an account there to settle with Mr. Palmer—I had to receive about 700 l . from him—that money was in respect of bets that I had made for him at previous races at Liverpool—I had backed horses for him at Liverpool—it was for bets I had made for him and paid—I had no money to receive from him in respect of the Shrewsbury races—I endeavoured to get my money at Shrewsbury—I got 40 l .—I asked him if he would let me have some money, and he said he had none, that he had some to receive—he did not tell me how much he had to receive—he gave

me a cheque for 250 l . upon the Rugeley bank—the dwpte was not paid—I have never got the money—I knew Mr. Cook's horse Polestar—in my judg ment Poleetar was worth about 700 l . after she won the race at Shrews-bury—she would have been worth more before she won; I mean with her engagements.

Cross-examined by MR. GROVE . Q. Did you win any money lor Palmar on Polestar? A. Yes; I kept that towards payment of his debt.

MR. STEVENS . re-examined. The mare Polestar was sold at Tattersall's on 10th March last, by auction; she fetched 720 guineas.

( This closed the case for the prosecution — MR. SERJEANT SHZE . addressed the Jury far the prisoner. )

Adjourned.

Thursday, May 22 nd

Witnesses for the Defence.

THOMAS NUNNELLY . ( examined by MR. GROVE .). I am a fellow of the College of Surgeons and professor of surgery in the Leeds School of Medicine—I am also a member of several scientific societies, foreign and English—I have been in practice between twenty and thirty years—I have had a large practice—I have seen oases of tetanus from convulsion, both traumatic and idiopathic—I have seen four coses of idiopathic tetanus in my own experi-ence—they did not all commence with the symptoms of lock jaw, one did not, lock jaw did occur, but very slightly, not to prevent swallowing in the course of the disease—I have been present during the evidence given as to the symptoms of Cook—I had previously read copies of the depositions, as to the medical and scientific part of the case—judging from the symptoms described, confining myself to the scientific portion of the evidence, in my opinion Cook died from some convulsive disease—I formed that opinion upon the symptoms described in the depositions, and upon the evidence before the Court—( The COURT . was of opinion that the witness could not be asked his opinion upon anything contained in the depositions, except as a matter of science )—upon the symptoms described by the witnesses in Court, my opinion is that the death arose from some convulsive disese—his preview state of health has an influence on my judgment.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You have been present in Court during the whole of this trial? A. I have—I have heard the symptoms described by the witnesses, of Mr. Cook's health previously to his final attack at Rugeley, the description of the actual symptoms during the paroxysms, and the facts which have been spoken to, and the appearance of the body upon the post mortem examination—I assume him to have been a man of very delicate constitution, that for a long period he felt himself to be ailing, for which he had been under medical treatment, that he had suffered from syphilis, that he had disease of the lungs, and that he had old standing disease of the throat, that he led an irregular life, that he was subject to mental excitement and depression, that after death appearances were found in his body which show this to have been the case, that there were found unusual appearances within the stomach, that the throat was in an unnatural condition, that the back of the tongue showed edmilar indications, that the lungs were in an emphyseraatous condition, that the air cells were dilated, that in the lining of the aorta, the large artery of the body, there was an unnatural deposit, and that there was a very unusual appear ance in the membranes of the spinal marrow—those are the indications which are unnatural upon the post mortem examination—I should also state

that it has been described by one of the witnesses, that there was a loss of substance on the penis.

COURT . Q. That is one of the elements of your opinion? A. Precisely.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. What in your judgment as a medical man would that indicate? A. That scar described upon the penis could only have resulted from an ulcer.

COURT . Q. Do you mean a chancre? A. Yes, that is the usual place for a chancre—it proceeds from an ulcer—a chancre is an ulcer.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. An ulcer is not necessarily a chancre? A. No—it is the usual place for a chancre.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. To what do you ascribe the symptoms to which you have referred, under his tongue? A. At the root of the tongue, in the throat, I should say to syphilitic inflammation of the throat—supposing the symptoms which I have described to be correct, I infer that his health had not been good for a long time, and that his constitution was delicate—there is another point that I should wish to mention: it has been stated that his father and mother both died young, that is part of the foundation of my opinion, and that his brother and sister were both delicate—supposing this to have been the state of health of Mr. Cook, I should think it would make him liable to nervous irritation—in my judgment, other causes besides physical causes, moral causes, for instance, would tend, in a person in such a state of health and of such a constitution, to excite nervous irritation—any excitement or depression might tend to bring on nervous irritation.

Q. Supposing a disordered state of the stomach and bowels supervened when he was in that condition, what effect do you think that would have? A. That would very much depend upon the violence of it—if it was violent, to the extent of frequent vomiting, and continuous vomiting for several days, it would produce a greater effect upon such a state of mind and con stitution than in a healthy person, out no peculiar effect—exposure to wet and cold would have a greater effect upon a person of such a state of mind and constitution than upon a healthy person, it would produce more serious illness—perhaps I had better give an explanation of my opinion upon that question, which is a very general one.

COURT . Q. Your opinion upon what? A. Upon the condition of the constitution; I mean that convulsive disease is more likely to supervene in such a constitution—I have nothing further to add upon that point.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. What would you infer from the fact, supposing it to have occurred, that three days before his death he suddenly awoke in the middle of the night in a state which he described as a state of madness, for two or three minutes? A. I understand that he had three attacks upon succeeding nights, and each occurring about the same hour—I should infer from that periodicity, that those attacks were of a convulsive character, in the absence of other causes to account for them—convulsive attacks are as various as possible in their form and degrees of violence—it is not possible always with certain accuracy to ascribe particular symptoms of convulsion to any one of the classes of convulsion into which they are divided by medical authorities—it is not possible to give a definite name to every convulsive attack.

Q. Are there many forms of violent convulsions in which the patient retains his consciousness? A. Not a great many forms of convulsive disease—there are some—there are some forms of hysteria.

COURT . Q. Does that apply to the male sex? A. Sometimes, occasionally, but far more commonly to the female.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Are there any forma of convulsion, epileptic in their character, in which the patient retains his consciousness? A. It is so stated.

COURT . Q. Have you met with any such case? A. No, not during the fit, not in epilepsy.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Do you know by your reading as a medical man, that that, though rarely, does sometimes occur? A. I was about to add, that the degree of consciousness in epilepsy varies very much; in some attacks consciousness is altogether lost, and prolonged during the whole attack—convulsive attacks are sometimes accompanied with violent spasms and with rigidity of portions of the body, rigidity of the limbs—convulsions, properly so called, occasionally assume something of the complexion of tetanic affections.

COURT . Q. Will you explain what you mean by convulsions properly so called? A. I understand from the learned Serjeant's question what is ordinarily called a convulsive disease, either of infancy, or under that form, not exactly tetanus.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Have you read the passage from Dr. Copland which I read yesterday to the Court? A. I have—I agree with what Dr. Copland there states—when I say that convulsions sometimes assume a tetaniform appearance, I mean convulsions arising from almost any cause; worms in children will produce it, affection of the brain in adults, hysteria, and the giving of chloroform will produce it in some persons—it is consistent with my experience, that adults are sometimes attacked by such convulsions—I do not confine it to diseases of the brain—affections of the spinal cord, and die eating of indigestible food will produce it—I do not know that I have known instances in which it has arisen from retching and vomiting—I agree with Dr. Copland as to these convulsions sometimes ending immediately in death—when a man dies in one of these convulsions, the proximate cause of death is frequently asphyxia.

COURT . Q. You mean suffocation? A. Precisely, from the air not entering the lungs, or from spasm of the heart.

Q. You do not call that asphyxia? It would produce similar appear-ances—death from spasm of the heart is often loosely described as death from asphyxia.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Do you agree with Dr. Copland that con vulsions of the character you have described are sometimes recurrent? ( The ATTORNEY-GENERAL . objected to the form of the question, if the opinion of Dr. Copland was of importance, he might himself be examined; but it was not competent to counsel to obtain that opinion by an irregular question to another person. LORD CAMPBELL . was of opinion that the question was irregular )—I have seen convulsions recur at very various intervals, sometimes at hours, in others days.

Q. How soon have you known a patient who has suffered from a violent paroxysm of such convulsions as you have described, regain his ease and comfort? A. Oh, that is very varied; in a few minutes, or it may be hours—I should draw an inference as to the nature and character of the convulsion from the interval which elapsed between one convulsion and another—I should infer that it would depend upon some slight irritation in the brain, or the spinal cord—it sometimes happens when death takes place in a paroxysm of such convulsions, that upon post mortem examination there is no trace of organic disease in the body.

Q. Have you known at all, or frequently, in persons not further advanced

in years than the age of twenty-eight, that there have been granules between the dura mater and the arachnoid? A. They are not common at any age, that I am aware of—I do not know that any particular inference could be drawn from their appearance between the arachnoid and the dura mater of a man twenty eight years of age—it is not a very easy question to answer, whether they would lead me to any reasonable medical conjecture as to their cause and effect—they might or they might not.

COURT . Q. Could you form any opinion with regard to the cause or the effect of such granules; say aye or no? A. No, my lord.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Might they in your judgment produce any effect upon the spinal cord? A. Yes, they might; there are preparations in museums where granules are found in the membranes of the spinal cord, in which the patients are said to have died from tetanus.

Q. Do you know whether such granules, so situated, have been part of the symptoms of tetaniform convulsions? A. I have just stated that there are three preparations; I have not seen the cases, I have seen the prepare tions, they are in the museum at St. Thomas's Hospital—in order to ascer tain with satisfaction to myself, the nature and probable extent of injury from such granules, I should think it desirable that the spinal cord should be examined immediately after death—not the roost remote medical opinion of their effect could be formed from an examination so long as two or three months after death—I mean of their effect upon the spinal cord itself, more especially if the brain had been previously opened—independently of the appearance of granules between the dura mater and the arachnoid, I do not think it would be possible at that distance of time, viz., two or three months after death, to form any satisfactory judgment upon the general healthiness of the spinal cord—if there had been a large tumour, or some similar change, it might have been discovered, but neither softening nor induration of the minute structure of the cord could be detected—the minute nervous structure changes within a few days after death—in order to ascertain satis factorily the condition of the minute structure, it sometimes requires the assistance of a glass or microscope—that is often required when the exami nation takes place immediately after death.

Q. Have you, in the course of your experience, had cases of traumatic tetanus? A. I have—it commonly begins by an attack of the jaw—I have had experience, by personal observation, of idiopathic tetanus in four cases, one of them was my own child—in three of those cases the symptoms com menced with lock jaw, the fourth commenced in the body—the power of swal lowing easily was retained to the last.

Q. Have you had any personal experience in cases of tetanus which you have known, or which you now know to have been produced by strychnia? A. I have made the post mortem examination of two persons who have died from the poison of strychnia, within the last twelve months—I have seen the effects of an overdose of strychnia—I did not see the patients in either of those two cases, before death—I made the examination by order of the Coroner—it was by chemical analysis in both cases that I ascertained that the death had been caused by strychnia—I have my minutes of both those examinations here—in one case the examination was made forty two hours after death, and in the other thirty hours—in the first case the body had not been opened when my examination commenced—I have here my written statement, which I made at the time—( reads: " General surface not unnatural, no mark of violence nor of external injury of any kind, except an excoriation between the shoulders, produced by vesicatories applied

shortly before death. On the anterior surface of both thighs the skin was pale, with a defined boundary, in other parts perfectly natural, with the usual amount of lividity in the back. The eyelids were partially open, the globes were flaccid, and the pupils dilated. The colour of the face rather livid; the expression of face distressed; edges of the lips and teeth dark from sordes, probably the result of dark mucus. Muscles of the trunk not in the least rigid, indeed they were soft, and the body could be bent in any direction; those of the hips and shoulder joints were not quite so flaccid, though they allowed these joints to be easily moved, while those of the head and neck, fore arms and legs were quite rigid, the fingers being flexed, and the feet were somewhat arched. All the muscles, when cut into, were found soft and dark in colour. Head, scalp, and bones not more vascular than usual Dura mater and other membranes exces sively so; all the vessels of the pia mater enormously distended, with very dark fluid blood; upon the entire surface of the brain and cerebellum there was a considerable amount of bloody serum, particularly upon the upper surface, where in some places it looked almost like blood, probably occasioned by the rupture of some bloodvessels while removing the skull cap. Structure of cerebrum and cerebellum firm and natural as in health, except that it was far more vascular than usual; there was a large quantity of reddish serum in both ventricles. Spinal marrow, spinal veins, and those of the membranes of the cord very much congested; a large quantity of theacal fluid of a red colour. Medulla itself natural, except, perhaps, that the enlarged portion at the lower cervical portion, was rather softer than natural Chest; there was some bloody serum in the pericardium (about an ounce). Heart healthy, but soft and uncontracted; nearly empty, all the blood having pro bably drained out from it, and the large vessels, through the sinuses of the skull (this having been first opened), and then the vertebral canal, during which the body was placed with the head hanging over the table. Bloody serum in the cavities of both pleurae, the membranes being stained of a dark hue. General structure of the lungs quite healthy, but enormously distended with dark fluid blood. Some of the air cells were ruptured, so that there was sufficient emphysema to prevent the lungs from collapsing. The lining membrane of the trachea and bronchi was covered with a layer of dark bloody mucus. It was the most congested and darkest I ever saw; it was literally dyed of a deep chocolate colour, which even pervaded the car tilaginous rings of the trachea. All the thoracic viscera with their mem branes were much congested, and the blood was everywhere dark and fluid. Abdomen and pelvis were, in structure, quite healthy. The stomach and duodenum were removed for analysis, but when opened were found to be quite healthy. The guts contained a large amount of faeces.") This is the second case that I referred to, in which the examination was made thirty hours after death ( reads : "I saw the body about twelve hours after death. The muscles were then flaccid, so that the want of rigidity mentioned was not owing to any post mortem change; besides, the weather was not very hot. The immediate cause of death was clearly asphyxia, as all the appearances in the body showed. A post mortem examination was made thirty hours after death. The body was well formed and plump, but very dirty, with considerable evidence of severe syphilitic disease. The left labrium was greatly swollen, ulcerated, and indurated. The mine escaped through a large ulcer in the vagina, which communicated with the neck of the bladder. Not more than the usual post mortem discoloration was present, except about the face and neck, which were livid and bloated. There was much foam about the mouth and nostrils. There was scarcely any rigidity,

less than usual, in the lower extremities; none whatever in the upper arms, chest, or body; little in the thighs, hand, and feet, the legs and lower arms being somewhat rigid. On removal of the integuments, the muscles seemed to be very flaccid. The lungs were emphysematous, from rupture of air cells. The posterior part of the lower lobes was congested, and rather, but not ex-cessively œdematous; otherwise they were quite healthy. The bronchial tubes were filled with frothy mucus, as were the larynx and upper part of the trachea, the lining membrane of which was so congested as to be quite crim son in colour. The small muscles of the larynx and glottis were more firmly contracted than those of any part of the body. There was no effusion into the pleuritic cavities or pericardium. The heart was perfectly flaccid, con-taining, on the right side, a large quantity of dark fluid blood, with some little soft pale fibrinous clots in the ventricle; on the left side, only some small quantity of dark soft coagulum. The structure of the heart was healthy. The stomach was distended with flatus, but containing not more than three ounces of a pale bluish green coloured thick gruelly fluid, without any appearance of other food. Near the larger end were some few spots of extravasation in the mucous membrane, which in other parts was pale and natural in texture. The small intestines, within and without, were pale, containing nothing except some bilious mucus and flatus. The large in-testines contained some small portion of excrementitions matter; but, like the small, they had in them little else than flatus. The spleen was large and dark from congestion. The liver and kidneys were natural The bladder was partly filled with natural urine, which escaped by an ulcer into the vagina. The uterus was enlarged, very dark, and congested, containing an ovum of about seven or eight weeks; ovaries very large, and in one a large corpus luteum. The vessels of the scalp, dura mater, and pia mater were much distended with dark fluid blood. Some serous effusion was present in vessels of the pia mater and upon the convolutions; none in the ventricles. The substance of both cerebrum and cerebellum was perfectly natural, except, perhaps, having more vascular points on being sliced. The medulla oblongata was firm and natural. The spinal veins were congested; the medulla spinalis itself was natural, except perhaps (but of this I am doubtful) rather softer than usual at the bulbous expansion about the seventh cervical vertebra; and there was some serum effused within the membranes of the spinal cord.") In both these instances the persons were females—in the former case the age was twenty-eight, I believe, and in the second near twenty—I should mention, in addition, that which was not mentioned at the time, and is not down in this copy, although it is in my original notes, that there was fluid in the membranes of the spinal cord—these are not my original notes—it was sent to the printer's, and altered without my correcting it—there are two or three mistakes in other parts, but not in the part I have read—that is correct—I gave it in evidence before the Coroner—I have seen a patient under the influence of strychnia poison, from accidentally taking an over-dose—I have seen more than one case in my practice where persons hare taken too large a dose—none of those cases have been fatal—there was one case in my own family, and two others—about one-sixth of a grain was the dose taken—that was in the case of a man of middle age—the symptoms came on a very few minutes after the ingestion of the poison—I had given it in solution—the patient was up and walking about when attacked—the symptoms were want of power of controlling the muscles, manifested by twitching and rigidity, with some cramp, more violent in the legs than any other part of the body—the twitching and rigidity was not very violent—it was not a severe case—the spasms were not very violent—they lasted for six hours

before they entirely disappeared—during that six hours they were inter mittent, at varied intervals; as the attack passed off the Intervals became longer—at first they were every two or three seconds—they were not combated by medical treatment—I do not know of any medical treat ment.

COURT . Q. What had the patient taken? A. One sixth of a grain, as near as we could ascertain—I had prescribed one-twelfth of a grain.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Will you describe the other case? A. The other case was very similar, so similar as not to need description—I had prescribed one-twelfth of a grain in that case, and the patient had taken about one-sixth—the symptoms were similar—those are all the cases in which I have had the opportunity of witnessing the action of strychnia poison in the living human body—I have experimented upon upwards of sixty animals with strychnia poison, dogs, cats, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, frogs, and toads—there is a great general resemblance in all animals under its influence—some are much more susceptible to its action than others, and bear a very much less dose than others.

Q. How soon after the ingestion of the poison, generally speaking, has its action made its appearance by symptoms in the animal? A. From two minutes to thirty—more generally about five or six—where the poison has not been administered in a solution, the usual interval between the ingestion and the paroxysms has been about five minutes—I occasionally administered it in solution, but more generally in the solid state; sometimes placed dry on the back part of the tongue, and some fluid poured down the throat, sometimes enclosed between two portions of meat, sometimes mixed up with butter or suet, and sometimes rolled in a small piece of the gut of an animal; and in frogs and toads it was given by the skin, putting them into a solution of it—I have also applied it direct to the spinal cord, and in other cases to the brain.

Q. What has been the first symptom of the animal having come under the influence of the strychnia poison? A. A desire to be quite still, hurried breathing, slavering of the mouth, only when given at the mouth, and then twitching of the ears, trembling of the muscles, and inability to walk, convulsions of all the muscles of the body, the jaw generally firmly closed during the convulsions; convulsions followed by a total want of power in the muscles, which, on the least touch, are thrown into violent spasms, with a galvanic-like shock; that also occurs if the animal attempts of itself to move, of its own volition; the spasms come on if the animal is either forced or touched, or attempts voluntarily to move—that is the usual course—occasionally the animal is able to move without a recurrence of the spasm—the spasms recur at various periods until the animal dies.

COURT . Q. Increasing in violence? A. Not always—the animal dies in various periods, up to three hours and a half, which is the longest period at which I have known an animal die—in cases where they lived for any great length of time, the violent convulsions recur at less frequent intervals—in every case, immediately before death, the rigidity ceases; I do not know an exception to that, and the muscles are quite soft and powerless; flaccid; the limbs may be put in any position whatever.

Q. Being put in any position, does the rigor mortis come on quicker or slower than in ordinary cases? A. I think there is little difference after all convulsive deaths—I observed the same where I have destroyed animals by hydrocyanic acid, chloroform, and other substances, which produce similar convulsions.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. With respect to the rigidity after death from strychnia, what has been the extent of the rigidity as compared with the rigidity when destroyed by other chemical agents? A. I think there is very little difference—in the cases of the two women, it was much less than usual.

COURT . Q. Do you mean much less than common where death is by natural disease? A. Yes.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You mentioned some slight symptoms; a desire to be quiet, slavering at the mouth, and twitching at the ears, which preceded the convulsions. A. Yes, the violent convulsions—those symptoms occurred in the order in which I have named them—that has been at varying intervals before the convulsions—I have known fatal cases of animals poisoned by strychnia in which there has been a considerable interval between the first paroxysm and the second; I have just stated that; about half an hour, I should think, but that is not common—I have examined the bodies of upwards of forty animals which have been killed by strychnia—I have invariably found the heart full on the right side, very generally the left ventricle firmly contracted; the blood usually dark and often fluid—there is no particular appearance attached to the spine.

Q. Have you experimented largely with other poisons producing sudden death on animals? A. Largely is a comparative term, I may perhaps say I have—I perhaps have experimented upon upwards of 2,000 animals—I have for many years devoted much attention and study to the effect of poisons—I have published two essays on the subject—in the case of the sudden death of an animal by poison the blood is very often fluid after death, but not invariably by any means—it is frequently fluid, but I do not think it is to be depended on at all; it varies with the nature of the poison—it happens in cases of sudden death from other causes—I have attended to the evidence that has been given as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook on the Monday and Tuesday nights, and on the Sunday night.

COURT . Q. What do you assume the symptoms to have been on the Sunday night? A. A state of great excitement; that Cook described himself to have been very ill; that he was in a state of great excitement; and in such a condition that he considered himself mad for two minutes.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Do you remember also what he was sworn to have stated as to what he imagined to be the cause of the excitement? A. I was about to add that; that there had been some noise in the street.

Q. Now, adverting to the symptoms described on those three occasions here in Court, is it your opinion that they could have been produced by the poison of strychnia? A. They do not resemble what I have seen follow—he had more power of voluntary motion than I have observed in animals poisoned by strychnia.

COURT . Q. Does this include the Sunday night? A. It seems to me that you have no direct evidence, except his own statement, what his symptoms were on the Sunday night.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Then confine your evidence to the Monday and Tuesday; you say he had more power of voluntary motion than you have observed generally in animals under the effects of the poison; to what symptoms of the existence of that power do you refer in the evidence you have heard? A. Sitting up in bed, moving his hands about freely, swallowing, talking, and asking to be rubbed and moved—I believe that completes the symptoms which satisfy me that there was a greater power of voluntary motion—and this case also varies from those I have observed in animals in

the sudden accession of the convulsions without the usual premonitory symptoms, and in the greater length of time which occurred from the taking of the pills which were supposed to contain the strychnia, which is so much greater than any period that has occurred in my experience—no other particular difference in the symptoms before death at present occurs to me; the screaming and the vomiting I should mention—I have never seen an animal vomit after taking strychnia.

COURT . Q. Nor scream? A. Nor scream, as a voluntary scream, using the scream as an expression of voluntary noise.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Is there any medical reason that occurs to you why the patient should not vomit? A. apprehend where there is so much spasm of the parts, there is an inability to vomit, and cases are related where attempts at vomiting have been made, and they could not succeed—I have a case which is related in the 10th volume of the "Journal de Pharmacie," in which attempts were made to give emetics, without success—the post mortem observations which I have made upon the bodies of animals poisoned by strychnia, and the post mortem appearances of Mr. Cook's body differ materially in the particulars I have mentioned—the heart is stated to have been empty and contracted, flabby I think, the state of the lungs not congested, and the state of the brain not congested—there is no other differ ence that occurs to me—in the cases of the animals upon which I expe rimented, where the paroxysms have recurred, the course of the subsiding of the paroxysms has been gradual—I have never known the case of a severe paroxysm recovered from, and then a long interval of complete repose for several hours; I have stated for half an hour, in an animal.

Q. Have you also experimented upon the bodies of animals poisoned by strychnia, with a view of discovering the strychnia poison in the body, the body being in various stages of fermentation and decomposition? A. I have, from a few hours after death, at varying periods up to the forty third day, the body being quite putrid in the latter cases—I have not failed in any one case to discover the poison by the tests which I have applied—I could not say the number of cases in which I have experimented for that purpose, but in many cases, fifteen perhaps—I cannot say to a few, more or less.

Q. Supposing a person to have died under the immediate effects of strychnia poison in the first paroxysm after its administration, and his stomach to have been taken out and pnt into a jar on the sixth day after death, in your opinion must strychnia have been found in the body upon proper chemical analysis? A. If it were there—if I am to assume that he died of it, I say yes.

COURT . Q. Supposing a person had died in the first paroxysm of strychnia, and his stomach to have been taken out and put in a jar on the sixth day after his death, in your opinion the poison—? A. Ought to be found.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. What tests would you use to detect the poison? A. Extract it first from the other matters with which it was mixed, endea vour to obtain it separate; I should place the contents in water acidulated with acid, boil it for a short time, and filter, neutralize with an alkali, potass or lime, evaporate, and dissolve the residue after evaporation with spirit or ether—I am stating the process which we did follow, dissolve with alcohol, evaporate the alcoholic extract to the consistency of a thick syrup, and I should then have the strychnia in a state to apply the tests—if it is common commercial strychnia, such as is almost invariably found in use among medical men and druggists, one test is nitric acid, which gives a red

colour, which in a great measure disappears upon the addition of protochlorids of tin; if the strychnia be pure, it does not undergo any change on the addition of sulphuric acid; but upon the addition to this mixture of bichro mate of potass, and several other substances, it produces a beautiful purple, which changes through varying shades till it gets to be a dirty red—there are several other tests, but that I think is sufficient.

Q. Now, adverting to the statement about putting the stomach into the jar; taking it that the stomach was put into the jar on the post mortem examination, and brought up to London, and then immediately sub mitted to experiment; in your judgment was that in an unfavourable, or in a favourable condition for ascertaining, aye or no, whether strychnia was there? A. It would give a little more trouble, I do not see anything else.

COURT . Q. Then you think it was not in an unfavourable state for exa mination? A. It would give more trouble, but not affect the result otherwise.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Supposing, four days later, the liver, the spleen, and the kidneys, had been placed in another jar, and sent up, and forthwith examined, in your judgment, if the person had died of strychnia poison, ought it to have been discovered in those parts of the system? A. Yes—I have seen strychnia discovered in the corresponding portions of the system of animals killed by strychnia—I have seen it done by other analysts—I have also seen it detected in the blood—I have not done it, I saw it done by Mr. Herepath, of Bristol—I do not think that an analysis would bt defeated or confused by the existence in the stomach of any other substance which would produce the same colours—the existence of pyroxanthine or salacine in the stomach, or in the other parts examined, would not defeat the experiment—pyroxanthine is about the most unlikely substance to exist in the stomach of an animal—it is one of the rarest and most difficult sub stances to be obtained, even by chemists—the distinction between pyroxan thine and strychnia is quite evident and distinct—in order to detect pyro xanthine it is not necessary to apply bichromate of potass—pyroxanthine changes to a deep purple on the addition of sulphuric acid alone, and on the addition of the bichromate of potass the colour is spoilt; whereas in strych nia, upon the addition of sulphuric acid no change is produced; it requires the addition of the bichromate to induce the colour—I have the substance in my pockets—supposing death to have been caused by a dose of strychnia poison, sufficient, but not more than sufficient, to destroy an animal, in my judgment, it would not be so decomposed by the process of absorption as that I should not be able to detect it by those tests, in some portion of the system—if death were produced by a minimum dose of strychnia, I believe there would be no decomposition that would prevent the discovery of it—that question has been a matter of consideration to me previously to this trial—I know that it has been a question with some toxicologists.

COURT . Q. Is it a question upon which toxicologists have formed different opinions? A. I believe they have.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Have you studied the question sufficiently to be able to state sufficient reasons for thinking that a minimum dose, after having done its work, continues as strychnia in the system? A. Reasons which are sufficient to my mind—I believe the illustration given was, that as food undergoes a change on its being taken into the body, so did this substance—that is the argument of those who have expressed an opinion upon it—I say there is no analogy; the change in food takes place during digestion, and, consequently, its elements are not found in the blood; at least the sub stances

stances; or if change does not take place, then they remain unchanged in the blood—these substances or alkaloids are absorbed without digestion, and may be obtained unchanged from the blood; but those substances may be administered in various ways—in my judgment, no amount of putrefac tion, within reasonable bounds, would prevent the discovery of the strychnia—to say that strychnia was absolutely indestructible would not be correct, bat within the ordinary bounds of decomposition strychnia is a fixed sub stance; I have found it after forty-three days—I should imagine that the more empty the stomach the quicker would be the action of the strychnia.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. I think you are the lecturer on surgery at the school at Leeds? A. Yes—Mr. Morley, the gentleman called for the prosecution, is the lecturer on chemistry—part of the experiments on these sixty animals I have spoken of, were made by Mr. Morley and myself jointly; not the greater party perhaps half of them might be—the general result was the same in those cases in which I experimented alone—the experiments upon the sixty animals has been spread over a period of thirty years—the experiments that I made in common with Mr. Morley have been made partly since the Leeds case that has been so frequently referred to, and part of them were made before that, in a case with which Mr. Morley had nothing to do—that was not in regard to this case, but in reference to the case which has been so frequently referred to—a great number of experiments were made conjointly—there were others that I made alone, both before and since—some of them were made in reference to this case, others certainly not—it would be difficult to say how many I have made with reference to this case—allow me to say, that I am engaged in the case that occurred at Leeds, and a great many of those experiments were made with reference to that case—I cannot say how many experi ments I have made with reference to this particular case—I cannot give any notion—I have made a few in reference particularly to this case, but the great bulk certainly not.

Q. When were you first concerned in this case? A. About the period of the death of the person whose case has been so frequently referred to—I was applied to on the part of the defence, in correspondence—I believe it began in this way, that the published case which I have read was forwarded to Mr. Smith, the prisoner's attorney—it was forwarded by me.

COURT . Q. Did you give it voluntarily? A. I called his attention to it—it was the first case, die second in the order in which your Lordship has taken it down.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Is that the case that we have all agreed to make an anonymous one? A. No, not that case—I cannot be sure whether that case had then occurred or mot—in the various experiments that I have made the general dose that has been given has been from half a grain to two grains—I have found half a grain sufficient to destroy life in the larger animals on which I have experimented—I have seen both a dog and a cat die from half a grain; not always, I mentioned that some animals were more susceptible than others—that applies to animals of different species; some animals, as a species, are more susceptible than others; and in individuals of the same species some are more susceptible than others, but there is a greater differ ence between the species.

Q. You mentioned that the symptoms have generally shown themselves in from two to thirty minutes; Mr. Morley told us from a few minutes to less than an hour: will you undertake to say that there have not been cases in which the first appearance of the symptoms have not been delayed an hour?

A. Yes—I say there have not been, that I have seen—I have known instance in which I have had to repeat the dose of poison—that is when the dose has not been sufficient to kill; but you say to produce symptoms, there is a wide difference—I have given it three times before killing—I gave half a grain each time—that was to a cat—it is very probable that the periods at which I gave the three doses were 34 minutes past 5, 10 minutes past 6, and 35 minutes past 6 o'clock, making, on the whole, two grains—I cannot be sure whether it wy so or not, I think it is very probable—there is no statement that symptoms were not shown; there were symptoms shown, certainly; the symptoms of spasms, but the animal did not die, and I had to repeat the dose—the cat did not swallow those doses—I think I have found other animals of the same cat species killed by it, young ones, but by no means uniformly old ones—with cats in general half a grain is the minimum dose—I think half a grain would be a small dose to kill an old strong cat, in the solid state—I am not sure whether a smaller dose will suffice in the fluid—it is probable, but I am speaking now of my own experience—I have stated already that it is my experience that when given in the fluid state a smaller dose will suffice—you may assume that hard breathing is among the first symptoms that show themselves, then comes twitching, an indisposition to move, then generally some slavering of the mouth, then twitching, then trembling of the muscles, and then usually convulsions.

Q. What I want to know is, whether these symptoms make their appear ance in all animals of the same species, or whether there ia diversity in the intervals at which they present themselves, and in the order in which they present themselves? A. I would not swear that that may not occur, but such is the result of my observations as the rule—I mean that they certainly do not occur at uniform periods of time—in describing them I should say that they occurred in the same order—I would not say there are not exceptions, there may be—I have not observed considerable variation in the order, I have in the time—when the convulsions have once set in, I have found some differ ence as to the periods at which these convulsions take place, with greater or less intervals—I have also found considerable variety in this, that one animal will undergo a succession of these attacks before it dies, and that another will die after a much less amount of convulsion—it seldom dies after one, generally four or five, and often a great many more—I have known one or two instances in which the animals have died after one convulsion—that has been where the death has followed from a dose equal in quantity to some other quantity which has not produced the same effect—the order in which the muscles of the body and limbs are convulsed, varies to some extent in violence—I think the limbs are generally affected first, that is the general rule; very often both together—where they are not simultaneous, the twitching of the extremities generally precedes, but I doubt whether that if not rather the result of their being more easily observed than the muscles of the trunk—the violent convulsions generally occur together—I do not think there is any difference with regard to the rigidity that I have men tioned as occurring after death, I think it is not greater than is due to the ordinary rigor mortis.

COURT . Q. You have known of no instance? A. I have known instances in which the muscles of these animals have been very rigid, but I have known instances in which the animals, having died from different effects, have been equally rigid—I mean to state I do not think there is any peculiar rigidity induced by strychnia.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. If that be not so in the animal, how was

it that in the two instances where you found death from strychnia in the human subject, you found an undue rigidity? A. I mentioned that there was considerably less.

Q. With regard to the lady whose case we do not name, was it not the fact there, that, although the muscles of the body were flexible, the hands were in curved and the feet decidedly arched by muscular contraction? A. Not more than is usual in death from ordinary causes—I have said that the hands were incurved and the feet decidedly arched by muscular contraction—I mean no more than is due to the ordinary riyor of death—by muscular contraction I mean that they were rigid—I mean to say that I meant no more than was due to the ordinary rigidity of death, and I stated so at the time; not in the report that I signed, but in conversation with the parties who were engaged—the report was a statement of a fact.

COURT . Q. You meant to describe the common rigor mortis? A. Yes—it is stated in the former part of the report that the other muscles of the body were less so—I merely meant it to be understood that there was a distinction between the two portions of the body—a statement of that fact, but nothing more.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Mr. Morley stated here the other day, that in the experiments he made with you on animals killed by this poison, that after death there was an interval of flaccidity, and that after this, rigidity commenced, more than if it had been occasioned by the usual rigor mortis ; you do not agree with him as to that statement of fact? A. I do not—it is a difference of opinion entirely—I have said that I have generally found the heart full, the right side.

Q. Does the fact of the heart having been found empty in this case lead you to the conclusion that it was not a death by strychnia poison? A. Amongst other things—I heard the evidence given here the other day of the post mortem examination of Agnes French or Sennet, who died in the Glasgow Hospital—I heard it stated "that the heart was distended, stiff, and empty"—I believe I was in court when the gentleman who con ducted it gave his evidence of the post mortem examination of Mrs. Smith, who died from the unfortunate administration of strychnia—if he stated that the heart was perfectly empty I should have heard him.

Q. Does the fact in those two cases, where the death was undoubtedly from strychnia, of the heart having been found empty, exercise any influence on your judgment? A. Not unless I knew how the post mortem examination was made—if the post mortem was commenced in the head, the explanation was given by Mr. Morley and myself—in the case at Leeds, we had no doubt of the heart being full, but the blood being fluid, and the head being first removed, the large vessels are necessarily opened—the consequence is that the blood, by mere natural physical causes, drains away—I am not aware how the post mortem examination was made in this particular case of Mr. Cook—I beg pardon, the chest and abdomen were opened before the head; it was stated so, and therefore if there were blood in the heart it ought to be there—the head was not opened there in the first instance—that is my explanation of it.

Q. What would occasion, in your opinion, the contraction of the heart in Mr. Cook's case? A. The heart, if empty, is usually contracted—it is like other muscles, if the other muscles are contracted that will contract—if it be empty, and there is nothing to oppose its contraction, it will contract—I cannot account, from the appearances of the body after death, for the emp tiness of the heart, any more than it might be the usual effect of death—it

varies very much, but as a general rule in post mortem examinations we find, if the heart is empty it is contracted—the heart is a circular sac like muscle, and if there is nothing to distend it, it contracts—I do not say that in all cases that I have examined of strychnia poison the blood was fluid—in the great majority of instances it is so—suppose there is blood in the heart at the time of death it would not contract, it would be flabby.

Q. Therefore, if you find a heart contracted after death, it shows that that heart was in a contracted state at the moment of death? A. Then must be a distinction made, which is very frequently not made, between the two cavities of the heart—it is a very common thing to find the left ventricle contracted and hard, and the right flabby and uncontracted—it is very often spoken of, that is death by asphyxia—the post mortem appearances of Cook's body, which I say differ materially from those I have seen after death from strychnia, were the emptiness of the heart, the state of the lungs, and the want of congestion in the brain—the lungs are described as not being con gested.

Q. Do you attach any importance to the emphysema? A. Emphysema is of two kinds, one of them consists in a dilatation of the air cells, the other is a rupture by which the air, not being in the cells, passes amongst them—I inferred, from the description given, that it was not from the rupture of the cells here—I have found emphysema in the case of animals that hare died from strychnia—it has always been from rupture of the cells—it could be in no other way there.

Q. What is there in the statement of the witnesses which makes you think this was emphysema of the other sort? A. We are told that there was during life a diseased condition of the lungs.

Q. I am speaking of the appearance of the lungs after death? A. I must put the whole together—who was to be asked what the character of the em physema was?—the witnesses who made the post mortem examination were examined—if the question had been put to them they might or might not have been able to answer it—I have not been sitting here advising counsel throughout the case—while Dr. Harland was being examined I might have been—it did occur to me that it was proper to ask him what was the nature of it—I did not ask to have that question put because a question was an swered which was sufficient to my mind to show that disease existed—the question was put, as to disease of the lungs, to Dr. Savage—it did not occur to me when Dr. Harland was examined.

Q. You have told us the various symptoms about this gentleman, from which you gather that he was of a delicate constitution; to which of them do you ascribe these convulsions of which he died? A. Not to any—I stated that the fact of his having syphilis was an important ingredient in my mind—but you ask as to convulsions—I admit that he died from convulsions.

Q. You were carried through a long detail of the various ailments under which this unfortunate man suffered, and you say that those would, at all events, predispose him to convulsions? A. Yes—that is what I say—I mean the whole; the combination of them in a delicate man—amongst others I mentioned excitement and depression of spirits—the evidence of that is that he was three minutes after the winning of the race by his horse in which he could not speak—it was stated by Mr. Jones that he was subject to depression of spirits—mental depression I understood.

Q. Where do you find any mental depression, from the time of the Shrews bury races to the time of his death? A. There was a good deal of bodily depression.

Q. Would you expect excitement to produce its effects recently after its existence, or after it had totally subsided? A. It may induce that state of brain in which convulsions may follow at some distance—I do not find from the evidence that the brain watt perfectly healthy—Mr. Bamford said it was not—I judge from the evidence stated at the inquest itself as put in the depositions, I mean to say that in that condition of brain and system I believe it to be quite possible that convulsions might come on and destroy a person, and leave no trace—I do not believe this man died of apoplexy—you must bear in mind he had taken doses of morphia—I do not ascribe has death to morphia, except that it might assist in the coming on of the convulsive attack, and there might he changes in the spinal marrow; I do not mean changes brought about by the morphia—I should think morphia was not very good treatment in the state he was in then; I mean in the state of excitement—I do not mean to say that there was excitement at Rugeley, but morphia, where there is sick ness, will often disagree with the patient when there is an irritable state of the brain—there is no evidence of an irritable state of the brain at Rugeley—I object to morphia, because sickness is very often one of the symptoms indicative of there being an irritable state of the brain without there being delirium, and from what he said himself, he must have either been delirious on the Sunday night, or he must have had some attack similar to what he had afterwards.

Q. Do you mean to represent that you believe, on your solemn oath, that he had convulsions on the Sunday the same as he had on the Monday? A. I cannot say what he had—I do not believe he had—I do not believe he had not—in my opinion, the attack of the Sunday night was of less intensity than the attack on the Monday night, but, I think, very probably of the same character—I do not believe there'were convulsions on the Sunday—he died of convulsions—I say they were of the same character, but not of the same intensity—I believe he had convulsions on the Sunday, to a certain extent, but less in intensity—there was a stateof great mental and bodily excite ment—I do not believe they were convulsions, but a state that very often precedes convulsions—I admit that if a man has been put to sleep under the influence of morphia, and he is suddenly disturbed by a noise, it is likely to have a depressing effect upon him; but there is no proof that there was a noise except his own statement—it is part of my opinion, that he did not state what had occurred accurately—I do not mean to say that he did not state truly, but that he was mistaken—that is one of the symptoms we often find—I believe the man to have been delirious then.

Q. Be so good as to tell me what are those forms of convulsions of which you gave some statement to my friend, which will produce convulsions of a tetanic form? A. Any intestinal irritation will produce it—it may end in death—I have seen instances in children.

Q. I am not speaking of children; what convulsions are there which are attended with tetaniform symptoms? A. Any convulsions, if by tetaniform you mean an outstretching of the limbs—I have known convulsions ending in death accompanied with tetaniform symptoms, in children—I have never had a case of such forms of convulsions producing death, in an adult—the general statement of all writers is, that such cases do occur—my medical nomenclature will not furnish me with a name for it, except convulsions, convulsive diseases—I have never known or read of a case of convulsive disease of that nature, terminating in death, in which the patient was conscious to the last—I have seen it stated so, but I have never met with such a case—in epilepsy you sometimes have those tetaniform symptoms—where

epilepsy terminates in death consciousness is gone, so far as my experience goes—I have had four cases of idiopathic tetanus, and some five or six, perhaps, of traumatic.

Q. Be so good as to attend to what I am about to read to you, which is the statement of Mr. Jones of the symptoms under which Cook suffered from the coming on of the paroxysms: "Directly he bad swallowed the two pills he uttered loud screams, threw himself back on the bed, and was dreadfully convulsed; he said, 'Raise me up; I shall be suffocated!' that was at the commencement of the convulsions, which lasted five or ten minutes; the convulsions affected every muscle of the body, and were accompanied by stiffening of the limbs; I endeavoured to raise him with the assistance of Palmer, but found it quite impossible, owing to the rigidity of the limbs; when he found we could not raise him up, he asked me to turn him over on his side; I listened to the action of the heart; I found it gradually sinking," and so on; and he adds, "When he threw himself back on the bed he clenched his hands, and they remained clenched after death;" then, after another passage which I won't for the moment dwell upon, he says, "After death his body was so twisted or bowed, that if I had placed it on the back it would have rested on the head and feet; that twisting or bowing I first observed when Cook threw himself back on the bed."Now, I ask you to distinguish any one circumstance as regards the symptoms of convulsion and the stiffening of the limbs in real tetanus, traumatic or idiopathic, which differs from the description that I have just read to you? A. That is not tetanus at all—I do not think it is tetanus.

Q. I ask you to distinguish it in any one single particular? A. Let me clearly understand the question.

Q. I have read to you the description of Cook's symptoms as witnessed by Mr. Jones; I ask you to point out any distinction between those symptoms and the symptoms of tetanus? A. Do you mean the one paroxysm of tetanus, or the representation of the disease which is called tetanus?

Q. I am speaking of the paroxysm of tetanus? A. Then it is very like a paroxysm of tetanus.

COURT . Q. What you just now said was, "This is not tetanus at all." A. Not as a disease, that is what I say—not traumatic or idiopathic tetanus.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. I want you to point out any distinction between the symptoms which accompany the paroxysms of real tetanus, and those? A. I do not know that there is any distinction—the symptoms that have been read to me are symptoms of one portion of tetanus, one con vulsive attack, as far as they go, but that is different from the symptoms of tetanus as a disease—I only wish not to misrepresent—I was about to say I never saw a case of tetanus in which the rigidity continued at the time of death and afterwards—the symptoms of the paroxysms of the convulsions are not distinguishable from those of tetanus, nor from many other convul sive diseases at the moment of death.

COURT . Q. As far as they go, do they coincide with the symptoms of tetanus? A. Yes, at the moment of death.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Observe, that you have here consciousness to the last; that before the man dies he says "Turn me over;" and as soon as they turn him over he dies: tell me of any case you know of from your experience or reading, in which death has ensued from convulsions, where the patient was conscious to the last? A. I have already said I do not know I of such a case—the convulsions that take place after an administration of strychnia are very properly called tetanic.

Q. Do you agree with Sir Benjamin Brodie, that the symptoms in the convulsions arising after strychnia, are of the same character while they last as the symptoms in traumatic or idiopathic tetanus, and that the distinction between the two consists in the course in which the symptoms run? A. I think there is a difference, I think the hands are less violently contracted in affections of ordinary tetanus, and that the whole effect of the spasm is less in ordinary tetanus than in tetanus from strychnia—I think in tetanus from strychnia the hands are more firmly and tightly closed—I do not agree with Sir Benjamin Brodie in other respects, that the difference is in the course that the symptoms run—there is another difference, that in ordinary tetanus the convulsions never entirely pass away.

Q. I believe, from your frequent observation of the symptoms from strych nia, you felt perfectly prepared, in the case at Leeds, upon the description of the symptoms, to come to the determined opinion that it was a death from strychnia? A. I thought it probable and possible, but did not come to a determined opinion—I expressed an opinion—I said I had no doubt as to the cause of death; but that was after the post mortem examination—I think that is in the deposition before the coroner, after the post mortem examination, and if you read correctly, you will find added," and the post mortem appearances"—we had at that time ascertained that it was from strychnia—we had discovered the strychnia.

Q. Let me ask you if this is your view of the symptoms of strychnia as distinguished from the symptoms of ordinary tetanus: "The symptoms described were not assignable to any other cause—tetanus in many respects resembles the symptoms under which" the party whose case was in question—"laboured; tetanus is a disease of days, strychnia of hours or minutes?" A. Yes—I stated,"tetanus is far less violent in its effects, and in the great majority of cases comes on after external injury; when it comes on, it comes on slowly, by degrees; it usually commences about the jaw, and hence it is anatomically called lockjaw; it is not usually accom panied by the same convulsive twitching, and, I think, not by the same grasping of the hands, and the twitchings are not in the legs and feet—in strychnia they are the first symptoms, in tetanus the last—in tetanus, the hands, feet, and legs are the parts usually last affected—after strychnia, they are the parts first affected"—I stated that—I certainly do not mean to represent that this was a case of idiopathic tetanus, I never did, and you have heard nothing from me to infer that—nor do I think it was a case of tetanus in any sense of the word as usually applied, because it did not run the course of tetanus; it differed from it in the particulars I have already described, the very sudden accession of the convulsion, after the first rousing of Mr. Jones, his power of talking—that did not occur in the case which came particularly under my observation—I do not found my con elusions upon that individual case, but I take it as an element in them—I heard it stated, that in the case of Mrs. Serjeantson Smith, that she talked, and asked to have her legs rubbed, that she was conscious to the last, and that she asked to have her legs rubbed just before she died—that shakes my faith—I heard it stated that before she died she said something, but what the words were I don't remember—I don't know that her last words were asking to be turned over, but I don't dispute it, if you say so—the asking to have the neck rubbed in this case was a premonitory symptom of some convulsive affection—I believe I have stated already that in poisoning by strychnia the symptoms are usually first developed in the legs and feet—I have said that an animal first begins to feel twitching in the ears—before

the convulsion came on Mr. Cook had stiffness in the muscles of the neck and jaw, and begged to have his neck rubbed; they might be premonitory symptoms of that or any thing else—difficulty of breathing is one of the pre monitory symptoms—the first thing a person does who feels a difficulty of breathing is to sit up in bed—I know that Mr. Cook complained of stiffness about the neck and asked to have it rubbed, and so far as my experience goes in animals, in no one single instance could the animal bear to be touched, and it was evidently most painful for the animal to be touched—I have heard that Mrs. Smith asked to have her legs and arms straightened—it ig not stated that it gave her pain to have that done—I have not found that the pain upon touch was after the paroxysms had once set in—I have seen the paroxysm brought on by it; not in all cases, because the animal is not always touched—where it is touched the twitching comes on more violently; and you must allow me to add, that in the Leeds case, the lady for two hours, when she could speak, begged them not to touch her—it was when the attack was mild that she begged to be rubbed, not dur ing the fatal attack; it was not before the paroxysm had set in—she asked her husband to rub her feet and legs; that was just before the convulsions came on—after they commenced she could not bear it, because it caused a recurrence—I do not think it was in consequence of the twitching that she asked to have her legs rubbed—I think not, it was decidedly stated by all the witnesses there that she begged that she might not be touched—I think that Mr. Cook's case also differs from death by strychnia in this, that there was the power of swallowing so lately—that arises from inability to move the jaw—I have never seen an instance of tetanus from strychnia in which lockjaw did not make its appearance—I have stated in the Leeds ease that it was the last symptom, but in other experiments I have made on animals, I have not seen it—I do not deny that it may be so—I am speaking as a general rule—I think it is quite possible it may—I am speaking of the general result of my observations in the Leeds case—it came on very early, more than two hours before death—the paroxysms in that case continued for two hours and a half before death—I am speaking from memory—in that case we suppose there had been doses of strychnia four times repeated—I have not experimented upon the tissues, or upon the blood, I have seen it done—I first saw it done the day before yesterday—I have been in town several days—I thought it pro bable that this poison could be extracted by chemical process from the tissues—I never tried it—I saw Mr. Herapath experiment upon one case in that way—in that case the animal was killed by a dose of strychnia given by the mouth—I am not sure whether it was in fluid—I cannot recollect, or I would state it at once—two animals were killed at the same time, one by a solution, and the other by a solid; I think the quantity given was half a grain, but I did not make the experiment—a dog and a cat were killed at the same time—in the Leeds case there was strychnia enough given to poi son four animals afterwards with the contents of the stomach—I have stated that I succeeded in every case where I tried experiments in finding the strychnia—I think I am correct, for I have the original minute—Mr. Morley did not differ with me as to the strychnia being found in two cases; in one he did, but I will explain that; there was not in reality a difference of opinion between us, it was a mistake; we divided the portion that we found in the stomach into two portions; we adopted two different processes for ex tracting it, and by the one process we were both rather doubtful whether we detected it; but by the other process we were quite certain that it was detected—one of the processes failed, and the other succeeded—I do not

know that there was another case in which we differed, in which I thought I found it, and he thought he did not—I have no recollection of it—I do not know that Mr. Morley, throughout the experiments, had been doubtful as to the result, certainly not—Mr. Morley stated differently in his own ex amination here, and if you refer to it you will find it, except in one cast, and that Is the explanation which I give of it.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You have stated in the report that you drew up in one of the cases that has been mentioned, that the hands were curved, and the feet incurred by muscular contraction; in making reports of this kind of the symptoms or appearances of the body after death, de you state only extraordinary appearances, or ordinary appearances as well? A. Ordinary appearances also; a statement of a fact without anything more.

WILLIAM HEFA PATH . I an Professor of Chemistry and Toxicology at the Bristol Medical School—I have been occupied with chemistry forty years, and toxicology probably thirty years—I have experimented on the poison of strychnia—I have not seen a case in the human subject; I pre sume you allude to the symptoms—I am not a medical practitioner, I am an analytical chemist—I have seen a human body after strychnia has been taken, where death has occurred from strychnia—in one case I had the contents of the stomach—in that one case I examined the contents of the stomach for strychnia only in the simple state—I recognised it in that case by a chemical test—I discovered it in the contents of the stomach—that must have been about three days after death—the tests by which I ultimately recognized it were sulphuric acid and bi-chromate of potassia; sulphuric acid and puce-coloured oxide of lead; sulphuric acid and per-oxide of manganese—those are separate tests, that is the third which I am now giving—a fourth test is sulphuric acid and red ferri-cyanide of potassium—red prussiate of potash it is sometimes called—the puce-eoloured oxide of lead is the highest oxide—the other oxides would not succeed—those are all colour tests—they all produce a purple colour with strychnine if it is present, which purple passes to red—there is another class of tests which produce another set of colours with common or impure strychnia, but not with pure strychnia—my process, previous to applying the test, is to get the strychnia separated from the solution—the principle which has bees pointed out here was originally proposed by Orfila with sulphuric acid-then to evaporate and then to dissolve by some solvent—in the case of the human subject we make evident the existence of strychnia by the colour tests—I have experimented on animals which have taken strychnia, not to a large extent, but sufficient to establish the principle—I have witnessed experiments to the extent of, I should say, perhaps, eight, or nine, or ten—I have not analysed all of them.

COURT . Q. How many cases have you analysed? A. There are two which I destroyed myself—each of those were cats—I gave one grain of strychnia in the solid form—I could not get the animal to take the strychnia, and I left it in some meat at night, when I went to bed, and I found the animal dead in the morning; the body was dreadfully contorted, extremely rigid, the four limbs extended, the head turned round, not to the back but to the side, the eyes protruded and staring, the iris expanded, so as to be almost invisible.

MR. GROVE . Q. Will you come to the chemical examination? A. In. this animal I found, in the urine which had been ejected, strychnia, and I also found it in the stomach, with the tests I have mentioned—there was,

also, a second case in which I discovered strychnia—that also was a cat—I gave it the same quantity in a solid form in food.

COURT . Q. Did she swallow it? A. I made her swallow it—she remained without any symptoms at all for fifteen or sixteen minutes, very quiet; and with but few symptoms until thirty five minutes; it then seemed a little restless in it's eyes, the breathing a little thickened, and at thirty five minutes it had a terrible spasm, the four extremities and the head being drawn together—they were each extended, and brought to a centre.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Do you mean the extremities of the fore legs, or do you mean four in number? A. The four in number, and the head, all five parts were brought together in a centre, and stretched out.

MR. GROVE . How soon afterwards did the animal die? A. I watched it for three hours, for after this it had a second spasm—the first lasted about a minute or two—a frothy saliva was dribbling from its mouth, and it forcibly ejected it's urine—it had a second spasm in a few minutes after, when I thought the animal would die, but it soon recovered itself, and then remained quiet, at least still, with the exception of a trembling all over—it continued in that state until I went to bed—that was about three hours—during two hours and a half or nearly so the animal was in a peculiar state—touching it appeared to electrify it all through—even blowing on it produced the same effect; even touching the basket—the slightest thing which would affect the animal produced a galvanic jump, such as when the electric stream is passed through an animal, or a shock—I left it at the end of three hours, thinking that it would recover, but in the morning I found it dead, in the same indurated and contorted condition that the former animal was found in—in thirty six hours I proceeded to my chemical examination—I found strychnia in the urine, in the stomach and upper intestines, in the liver, and in the blood of the heart—I detected it in that case by the same test, but I took extraordinary precautions to get rid of organic matter—in all the cases where I have made a chemical analysis when strychnia has been taken, it has been successful, and not only strychnia, but in cases where nux vornica has been taken.

COURT . Q. In all the cases? A. Yes, about nine; I have found nux vomica in a fox and in dogs—that does not present exactly the same ap pearances—all the strychnia is found as nux vomica and I have found it where nux vomica has been taken.

MR. GROVE . Q. Do you mean that the nux vomica is rather more diffi cult to detect than strychnia? A. I mean to say that it is rather more complicated, because you have the vegetable matter of the nut—I mean to say that I have found strychnia when strychnia has been taken, and the nux vomica when nux vomica has been taken—in one case the animal had been buried two months—I have experimented with stiychnia mixed up with organic matter out of a body; I mean purposely mixed up with the putrid remains of animals, and have detected strychnia in those cases—I took the putrid remains of animals which had been sent to me from the laboratory, mixed strychnia with it, and found it in all those cases, whatever was the state of decomposition—I am of opinion, as a chemist, that where strychnia has been taken in a sufficient dose, it ought to be detected by chemical science up to the time that the body is decomposed—I do not think putrefaction would decompose it completely—by decomposition mean when the body has become a dry powder—having heard the evidence as to the jar which was conveyed to Dr, Taylor, I am of opinion that the jar containing the stomach, as is now stated, in the state it then was, from

my chemical knowledge, that strychnia ought to have been detected if it existed there.

Q. Are your tests liable to any irremediable difficulty from the substances that have been named, pyroxanthine and salicine? A. I cannot conceive how pyroxanthine can get into a human stomach; if it did, I should find it out at once by bichromate of potash, or salicine, or any other substance—you find bichromate of potash destroy the colour, but I should mention that that body is difficult to be obtained in London—there are not cases of errors, if the analysis be properly performed, provided the organic matter is properly got rid of; that is the main difficulty in testing for strychnia—you will understand that the experiment in which I found it in the liver was not the one made here in London—some of my experiments were made in Bristol—in London I made three separate experiments on the same body, one on the stomach, one on the liver, and one on the blood—I found it in those organs to the satisfaction of those who were surround ing me.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Ton are not a physic legist? A. No, I do not profess anything of the sort—I am not a medical practitioner—when I have experimented for the purpose of finding strychnia, it has been principally on the contents of the stomach, up to lately—on the 8th of the present month, I first tried the effect of my chemical process on any of the tissues of the body—it was with a view to this case, with a view of learning everything I could with respect to strychnia—I have experi mented to find strychnia, in about nine instances—they were not chemical experiments made by myself, but things sent to me to analyze, in which I have found it, with the exception of two or three in Bristol, and one in Lon don—the two in Bristol were cats, and the one here was a dog—this was not the only one where I have experimented on the tissues; there was a eat in Bristol and a dog in London—I experimented on the tissues of one of the oats, and on one of the dogs which I saw killed here, and found it in the oat, in the liver, the blood of the heart, and in the urine, besides the stomach, of course—one grain was given to the dog on which I experimented in London, it was a large dog—I do not know what is a minimum dose—I have seen an animal destroyed by a quarter of a grain—that was a cat—it was intended to give half a grain, but the cat spilled at least half the solution, and therefore I conclude that a quarter of a grain killed.

Q. You say that strychnia, when present, ought to be discovered; have not you said, and said more than once, that you had no doubt that strychnia had been given in this case, but that Professor Taylor had failed to find it? A. No, certainly not—I have not said so to the present Mayor of Bristol—I said that if it was there, Professor Taylor ought to have found it—I have not said to the present Mayor of Bristol, or in his presence, that I bad no doubt strychnia had been given in Cook's case, but Professor Taylor had failed to find it.

COURT . Q. You have not said that? A. Not in those words—it is very likely I may have said something to that effect; I don't deny that I had a very strong opinion, from the newspaper reports, that strychnia had been given—I judged from the various statements made—your lordship is aware that very extravagant reports were made, and as I was not at all connected with the case, I considered I had a right to express an opinion, the same as others—I do not consider that I was to blame.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Was that from the statements you had seen of the symptoms? A. No, it was from the statement given in the Illustrated Times , among the rest—that was the most conspicuous of them—I

dare say I have given my opinion pretty frequently in conversation, persons have naturally spoken to me a great deal on the subject.

COURT . Q. Do not you know what you said? A. No, because hundreds of people talked to me about it, knowing that I have made toxicology the principal part of my study; but my general opinion was something like what I have stated.

MR. GROVE . Q. What is the smallest quantity you have detected in the tissues or stomach? A. I can show you some which I extracted from a dog—if the strychnia is perfectly free, I am certain that I could discover the fifty-thousandth part of a grain, that is, if it is unmixed with organic matter, because ten grains of that body is soluble in a gallon of cold water—I mean to say that I have dissolved it in a given quantity of water, and have ascertained that I can detect it—ten grains is soluble in seventy thou sand—I can take the tenth part of a drop of that water and demonstrate the presence of strychnia, if it is perfectly free from organic matter—I do not go so far as to say that, if mixed with organic matter, I could separate it, and get the fifty-thousandth part of a grain—there is more difficulty the more organic matter there is present.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Suppose a grain had been administered to an animal, how much should you expect to find in the heart? A. Very little indeed—it is a difficult experiment, and requires great precaution, bat it can and has been shown.

MR. GROVE . Q. What portion? A. I cannot tell; I have no idea, but it must be a very small quantity, supposing that there are 251bs. or 26lbs. of blood in the human body—I found it in an ounce and a half of the blood of this dog—it was a large dog, and weighed about 251bs.—I took what I consider to be the eighth part of the liver—the gentleman with me thought that it was the tenth part of the liver, and with that I had enough to make four distinct experiments with the four tests, so that I experimented upon the thirty-second part of the liver—I could see the violet colour in that minute portion—it changed to purple, passing to red afterwards.

JULIAN EDWARD DISBROWE ROGERS . I am professor of chemistry, at the St. George's School of Medicine, Grosvenor-place, London, and have been for the last sixteen years—there are two schools, one called the St. George's, and the other the Clinical, connected with the hospital—I have made an experiment with strychnia upon one animal—a dog was poisoned at the end of Dec. last—I gave him two grains of pure strychnia, between two pieces of meat—the experiment was not finished till about ten days since—about three days afterwards I removed the stomach and its contents, and took some of the blood—the blood became putrid in about ten days after its removal from the body, and I then commenced an analysis, with a view to find strychnia—I separated the strychnia—I cannot say how much I found in the blood, but sufficient to demonstrate, by three experiments, that it was present.

COURT . Q. By the colour tests? A. By the colour tests, such as have been described in Court—the colour tests will not give me the quantity only by the amount of colour produced, which is not an indication.

MR. GRAY . Q. Did you afterwards proceed to analyze the stomach and contents? A. Not immediately; a month or five weeks afterwards—some other matters pressed, and I put it aside—the matter putrefied before I experimented upon it.

COURT . Q. What did you do? A. I treated it with acidulated distilled water, and the experiment was not finished till ten days ago—I then found strychnia separated in a large quantity by the colour teats.

Q. I thought you said just now that the colour tests will not give you the quantity? A. They will not give me the weight; but if I separate a large quantity of strychnia, which will enable me to make a large number of expe riments, I can tell; but as to the measure and weight, I cannot at all ascertain.

MR. GRAY . Q. Have you ever had occasion to analyze any portion of the human subject for strychnia? A. Not for strychnia, but many times for other poisons—I have heard the evidence as to the stomach of John Parsons Cook and its contents being put into a jar, and sent to London—in my judgment, if strychnia had been administered to Cook, it would unques tionably have been found in the contents, by the proper tests.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. How many experiments have you made? A. Only one, on this dog.

Q. My learned friend put the question to you as though there had been the contents of the stomach in the jar; do you think it would make any difference if the contents were lost? A. If there were no contents smeared over the intestines, that would make a difference; but if the contents were spilled and shaken up in the jar with the intestines, it would make no dif ference, except a little extra trouble—if they were in the jar, there would then be the washings of the stomach; that would make a more careful ope ration necessary—I do not consider that it makes it more difficult; it only consists in not losing anything of what you have got—if I have a stomach sent without any contents, I wash the stomach, and proceed with that—I am a medical man—I did not examine any of the tissues of this body upon which I experimented—the urine was lost—I operated on the stomach and the blood—I began in Dec. last—it is my opinion, that if I had tried on the tissues of the deceased's body, I should-have been able to ascertain whether there was strychnia—I have made no experiments of that kind, but I gather from my experiment, as well as from other experiments, that strychnia would be found in any putrefied body.

COURT . Q. After the time which has elapsed, when Cook died, if you had any portion of his body to operate on, could you have found out whether there was strychnia? A. Yes.

Q. But, now, at this hour? A. I do not see that the time would pre vent it, if it was there.

MR. GRAY . Q. Would you expect to find any of the strychnia which had entered the stomach, or the mucous membrane of the stomach, even if the contents were lost? A. I think I know what you mean; if strychnia had been in the contents of the stomach there would have been a portion of the contents smeared over the surface of the stomach, and in that smeared surface, when washed, I should expect to find the strychnia.

DR. HENRY LETHEBY . I am a Bachelor of Medicine—I am also a Professor of Toxicology at the London Hospital, and Medical Officer of Health for the City of London—I have been engaged for a considerable time in the study of poisons and their action on the living animal economy—I have been engaged frequently on behalf of the Crown in prosecutions of this nature; I believe in every case that has been tried in this Court fertile last fourteen years, or if not every one, nearly every one—I have "been present in court during the examination of the medical witnesses on this trial, and have attended to the evidence that they gave—I have heard certain symptoms described as attending the death of Mr. Cook—I have witnessed many cases of death by poisoning from strychnia; many of the lower animals; and several cases of poisoning by nux vomica in the human subject, one of which was fatal—the symptoms that have attended the cases of the

animals that I have seen, do not accord with the symptoms described in this case—in the first place, I have never witnessed such a long interval between the administration of the poison and the coming on of the symptoms, as was said to have elapsed in this case—after the administration of strychnia to animals, the longest interval that I have noticed for the symptoms to begin has been three quarters of an hour, and then the poison was administered under what may be called the most disadvantageous circumstances, in order to prolong the effect as much as possible—the disadvantageous circum stances were, a very full stomach, and the poison given not in a form easy of solution; the animal was quite gorged—I have seen the symptoms begin in five minutes after the poison was administered—I will not say that I have seen hundreds, but I have seen dozens of cases of the administration of strychnia to the lower animals—a quarter of an hour is the average time that the symptoms begin after the poison is administered.

Q. Is there any other particular besides the delay in the appearance of the symptoms which makes you conclude that this was not a case of strychnia? A. Yes—in all animals I have seen, and in the human subject also, when under the influence of strychnia, the system has been in that irritable state, that the very slightest excitement, as an effort to move, a alight touch, a noise, or a breath of air, will set them off in convulsions.

Q. Now, let me assume a case: do you believe it possible that a person to whom a dose of strychnia has been given, could rise out of his bed and ring the bell violently? A. I cannot undertake to say what is possible, it is not at all probable—I do not think it probable that he could pull a bell violently—any movement at all would excite the muscular system, and therefore the nervous system, and there would be convulsions, there would be spasms—it is not likely that a person in that state of nervous irritation could bear to have his neck rubbed—where a case of poisoning by strychnia does not terminate fatally, the paroxysms, when they go off, are succeeded by other paroxysms, which gradually shade themselves off—they gradually become less and less, one paroxysm being less in violence than the other, over a period of some hours—my experience quite accords with what has been stated by Dr. Christison, that the paroxysms last over a period of six teen or eighteen hours.

COURT . Q. Have you known of morphia or any antidote being given when those paroxysms have come on? A. Yes—I have some antidote, the usual hospital practice—I will not say morphia, but patients have been re ceived into the hospital under the influence of nux vomica, and we have watched the progress of a case, and antidotes have been administered.

MR. KENEALEY . Q. Do I understand you that there would not be an entire cessation of the spasms, but they would gradually go off during ten or twelve hours? A. Yes—I do not hesitate to say, that of all poisons, either mineral or vegetable, strychnia is the most easy of detection after death—I have detected it in the stomach of animals in numerous instances—I have detected it in the blood and in the tissues—the longest period that I have examined a body after death, has been one month—the animal was in a state of decomposition—I have succeeded in detecting very minute portions of strychnia—when it is pure it can be detected in very small frac tions of a grain, at least the twenty-thousandth part of a grain—when mixed up with matter it would be more difficult of detection, no doubt still, I can detect the tenth part of a grain in a pint of any liquid that it may be put into—I have detected it in broth—I can detect it whether the liquid is pure or putrefied—I have detected it in a pint of the most putrid liquid that I could obtain, in which the tenth of a grain had been stand ing

for two months—in the case of the animal which had been killed a month, and was in a state of decomposition, I gave it half a grain of strychnia, and I have the strychnia here within a fraction of what I gave—it was a rabbit—that half grain killed it—I lost about a tenth of a grain of strychnia in the course of the investigation—I operated on the whole of the liquid—supposing a person to have taken strychnia eight or ten days before his death, and a jar containing the stomach had been sent to me, I say positively that I could detect it—I have never failed—I have made post mortem examinations on those various animals which I have destroyed by strychnia, and have always found the right side of the heart full of blood—the physical reason of that is, that death takes place by the fixing of the muscles of the chest in spasm.

COURT . Q. Is it your opinion that it does so invariably? A. I conceive so; in my opinion it does, by the fixing of the muscles of the chest in spasm—at that time the blood is unable to pass through the lungs, and the heart cannot relieve itself of the blood which is flowing to it, it therefore becomes gorged with blood.

MR. KENEALEY . Q. Have you observed any particular appearance about the lungs? A. Yes, they are congested, filled with blood—I have admin istered strychnia in a liquid and in a solid form—I may agree with the opinion of Dr. Taylor, that when strychnia is administered in a sort, of pill or bolus, it kills in a period of six or seven minutes, but I do not say that it always will do so—it may kill—if it is administered in a pill it may show itself in that time.

Q. What is the first remarkable symptom you have noticed after the strychnia begins to operate on the animal: Dr. Taylor says that it falls on its side, do you agree with that? A. When it is in spasm it falls on its side—the jaws are sometimes spasmodically closed—I have said that I agree with Dr. Taylor that the slightest noise or touch reproduces another con vulaive paroxysm—I do not agree with him that the colouring tests for the discovery of strychnia are fallacious.

COURT . Q. You say they always succeed with you? A. They do.

MR. KENEALEY . Q. Dr. Taylor has given as a reason for the non finding of the strychnia, that it is absorbed into the blood, and is no longer in the stomach is in a great part changed; do you agree with that theory? A. I agree with its absorption, but I do not agree with its being changed—I have examined the tissues of the body, and I have found strychnia; and my opinion is, that it is not changed so as not to be discoverable.

Q. Supposing the contents were put into a jar, and jumbled up with the intestines and a portion of the stomach, would that prevent the discovery of strychnia, if the person had died of strychnia? A. It would not—sup posing that all the contents of the stomach were lost, I think the mucous membrane ought, in the ordinary course of things, to exhibit traces of strych nia—I have also studied the poison of antimony—supposing a quantify of antimony were infused into some brandy and water, and it was drunk off at a sudden gulp, the immediate effect of that would not be to bum the throat, or anything of that kind—antimony, in point of fact, to my knowledge, does not possess any such quality as that of immediate burning; not tartar emetic; not that form of antimony—I have turned my attention to poisons, I suppose, for seventeen or eighteen years.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY GENEBAL . Q. Are you a member of the College of Physicians? A. No, I am not—I am not a member of the College of Surgeons—I do not now carry on business in the medical line—I do not practice medically—I have done so, in general practice, that means

every species of medical practice—I have not done so now for more than two or three years—the last case that I was employed in for the Crown, was some time ago—it was the case of Ann Merritt—it was in 1851—I gave evidence in that case of the presence of arsenic—the woman was convicted.

Q. Did you state, in addition to the finding of the arsenic, your opinion that it had been administered as recently as within two hours? A. Four hours—the sentence was not carried into effect, in consequence of my har ing written a letter—I was the cause of her being respited—other scien tific gentlemen interfered and challenged the soundness of my conclusions before I wrote any letter at all—I have been employed since on the part of prosecution, but I do not think by the Crown—there has not been a case that I know of since in this Court.

Q. The whole question turned on the accuracy of the opinion as to bow recently the poison had been administered; you were the only scientific man examined in that case, I believe? A. was the only one that detected the poison—I had no doubt of it, and I still hold that opinion, and stated that in my letter—the question was put to me as to possibility—I said, "I cannot speak of possibilities, I adhere to the probability that the poison was given within four hours of death"—I cannot tell how many animals I have destroyed by means of strychnia, it has spread over a large number of years;. pretty well fifty, some recently; five within the last two months—I have never given more than a grain—I have administered it in these recent cases always in a solid form; sometimes made into a pill or mess with bread, and at other times put on the tongue of the animal—I am not sure it would operate sooner if put on the tongue, because it adheres some time to the mucous surface of the tongue, and does not get absorbed so soon, from the circumstance that there is no acid—a pill would have to be dissolved—still I think it would be shorter, because it gets into an acid, which is the more capable of dissolving it—in the case where I gave the poison under the disadvantageous circumstances, the dog had had a very hearty meal, and it was kneaded up into a hard mass with some bread, and it took three quarters of an hour before the action came on—I never allow them to eat it voluntarily; I always open their mouths and cast it into the stomach—there was one other animal which took about half-an hour before the action came on, but the poison was not given in sufficient quantity—that was given in a solid form, and it did not manifest any action, and we gave it another dost—the dose was half a grain; and we gave it another dose which acted within ten minutes—with regard to what was said by Mr. Nunneley, as to the pre monitory symptoms, I have noticed the irritability of the animal before it has become convulsed—Mr. Nunneley talks of the ears being moved I think.

Q. What he describes is this; first, a desire to be still, then a difficulty in breathing, a slavering of the mouth, twitching of the ears, trembling of the muscles, followed by convulsions; did you observe all these? A. I cannot say all of them in that order; there is an excitement manifested in the ani mal, an indisposition to be touched, and trembling on being touched—I have noticed that the touching did occasion a tremulous action of the muscles—they have not come on in regular order—sometimes one set of symptoms in one animal and another in another, not much varied; but there are those little variations—after the convulsions have once commenced, there is an interval; then a breath, a sound, or a touch will cause a recurrence of the convulsive symptoms; that is, after they have been seized—that would not apply to a case where the animal died in the first paroxysm—I have known many instances where an animal has died in the first paroxysm.

Q. You mentioned that there is a distinctive feature in this case of Cook,

that 7011 were surprised at his manifesting so much power as to be able to at up in bed and ring the bell; are you aware that that was the first commencement, before any of the convulsive symptom! had set in? A. Yes, I apprehend that was at the onset or beginning, as it were, of the convulsive symptoms—this was five minutes before the convulsive symptoms began—I know that he sat np in bed and rang the bell, and that it was not until Palmer had been fetched across and had gone back and given him the pills, that the convulsions came on—I have noticed in animals that the mere touch sends them into convulsions, and they show an indisposition to move—I heard about the lady who died near Romsey; that the maid said that when her mistress's bell rang violently she went, and found that she had got out of bed, and was sitting on the floor—that struck me as inconsistent with what I have seen, but I have no doubt that was a death from strychnia—if that evidence be true, and it is a fact that she got np and rang her bell, that does not shake my opinion; I still adhere to it; it is not consistent with what I have seen—you must compare it with what I have seen—I tell you that both that case and this are irreconcilable with what I have seen—I have no doubt of this lady dying from strychnia.

Q. With the exception of the symptoms which came on at a longer period after the supposed administration of the poison, a longer period than you have ever known, and that the gentleman was able to sit up in bed and ring his bell, is there anything to distinguish these symptoms after the convul sions began, from the tetanus you have seen? A. Yes, one part of my dis tinction is, that when a fit of tetanus from strychnia manifested itself if the individual did not die, there was a gradual shading off of the symptoms.

Q. I am speaking at present of the Tuesday night; with the exception of the ringing of the bell, and that in this case it was an hour or am hour and a half; can you point out anything to distinguish the symptoms and death of Mr. Cook from the symptoms attending on and leading to death by tetanus from strychnia? A. No, I cannot—it is inconsistent with what I have observed in animals, but it is not inconsistent with what I have heard in the case of Mrs. Smith—the first symptom is a panting respira tion—it is excitement, rather than difficulty, of breathing—it is not an early symptom, it is in the convulsions that there is a difficulty of breathing—if a man were to breathe hardly it is a position naturally assumed for him to sit up—until the convulsions and rigidity comes on there is nothing to prevent his sitting up in his bed.

Q. Then, if you except the delay in the manifestation of the symptoms, and the fact of his sitting up in his bed and calling for help, is there anything to distinguish the convulsions under which this man suffered, and under which he died, from the convulsions of tetanus from strychnia? A. Ton will ex cept one other thing, which was the fit on Monday night; that is the important distinction.

COURT . Q. Suppose that were all you knew of the subject? A. Then there is not—the violent ringing of the bell is not perfectly inconsistent with the tetanus of strychnia, but the account which in given of Mrs. Smith is what I cannot reconcile with what I have before observed.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. With regard to the abrupt termination, instead of the gradual subsidence of the paroxysms in the cases where you have observed it in animals, has it been where you have given them the full dose? A. And in the human subject also—mind, I am speaking from my experience on man as well as on animals—there was a ease of a man who had taken very nearly a grain of strychnia—that is a strongish dose, and you might expect a recurrence of the paroxysms—the subsidence will not depend

on the strength of the dose, it will depend on whether the individual is to recover or not—of course, that will be dependent on the strength of the dose—I have seen four or five cases of recovery, and at the time Dr. Pereira wag making his experiments at the hospital, I have seen the human subject under full doses of strychnia; on one occasion it is stated in the books that he gave a grain and a half of strychnia in the course of a day—that would keep up the recurrence of the symptoms—he ceased when he found they were under its influence; it would have killed the patient, but the dose wit stopped, and gradually shaded off—we had gradually worked him up to it by a succession of doses—the effect does not manifest itself in the small dote—when you give them a larger dose it is possible that the other portion is carried away from the system.

Q. Is it not generally supposed that the effect of strychnia is very varied in different individuals? A. I think there is great uniformity in the effects of strychnia—there would be a little variation in time, but in the main features of the case there would be none—I find this difference, that from the same dose in the same species you get one paroxysm, or you get a series of paroxysms terminating in death—but the effects are the same for all that—the symptoms are precisely the same, that is what I mean—I was disposed to think it was a fit on Sunday night—I cannot tell you what it was, I have formed no opinion—Mr. Cook's death is irreconcilable with everything am acquainted with.

COURT . Q. Is it reconcilable with any known disease which you have ever seen or heard of? A. No, it is irreconcilable with everything.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. You say it is not reconcilable with anything you have ever heard of—do you mean to say that it could not be the result of any variety of convulsions, however violent, though not classed under any particular description of convulsions? A. In order to answer that question must tell you that we are learning new facts every day, and I do not conceive it to be impossible that some peculiarity of the spinal cord, unrecognizable except the examination be made immediately after death, may produce symp toms like those—when I say that it is irreconcilable with anything I have heard of, I include everything I have heard of strychnia poison as well as every thing else, natural disease or poison—the vomiting of the pills by Mr. Cook just before death, is not consistent with anything I have known and observed of strychnia poison.

Q. You have been asked whether in the interval between the fits of an animal under the influence of the strychnia poison, touching it does not bring a paroxysm on—have you tried and ascertained whether if you touch an animal which is beginning to exhibit those minor premonitory symptoms, but which as yet has had no paroxysms, whether the touching it at that time will bring the paroxysms on? A. Yes, it does—any excitement will produce them—the Romsey case was an exceptional case, from the manner in which the strychnia was administered, and the quantity of the dose—in my judg ment, the ringing of the bell by the lady the moment she felt anything of uneasiness, produced the paroxysm which ultimately was observed in her—it is quite consistent with all I have seen, that a movement would excite a paroxysm.

Q. In the Romsey case the poison was administered in a liquid, and the paroxysms took place within ten minutes—is it safe, in your opinion, to argue from the symptoms that occurred in that case as to what might be the nature of the malady in this? A. With regard to the great features, they are the same in all instances—the mode in which it is administered, in a fluid or a solid form, will make a difference in the time, but not in the nature

of the operation—I am still of opinion that the evidence I gave on Merritt's trial is correct—I have never altered my opinion—I am not a ware of there being any ground for imputation on me in reference to that matter; not the slightest—I know of no ground for supposing, until this moment, that there was the slightest displeasure on the part of Government—I have since been on the prosecution side in cases, and I very much think the Crown has been the prosecutor—it came to my knowledge, after I had given my evidence, that other gentlemen differed from my opinion, and I answered their objec tions—Dr. Pereira came to the laboratory and said, "Save this woman's life if you can by admitting the possibility of its being otherwise"—I said, I had no objection to write a letter, admitting the possibility, but not the probability—that letter was taken to the Secretary of State, and within one hour the respite came—I did it as an act of mercy, on the ground of possibility—I wrote the letter to Dr. Pereira, not suggesting the possi bility that I might have been tinder a mistake—he asked me, as an act of mercy, to write a letter to him, to be shown to the Home Office, to admit the possibility of the poison we found in the stomach having been adminis tered longer than four hours before death—I wrote a letter, and in admitting the possibility, drew an instance of what might be possible, but not probable—I do not know whether I may tell you what that instance was—the woman was not pardoned, but transported for life.

ROBERT EDWARD GAY . I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons. On the 2nd of October, 1855, I attended a person named Forster, suffering under tetanus—he had an inflammatory sore throat, muscular pains in the neck, and the upper portion of the cervical vertebrae—he was feverish, and had the usual symptoms ordinarily attending catarrh—I put him under the usual treatment of salines and aperients, also using embrocations externally to the muscles of the neck and throat, and also prescribed gargles for him, which he used for the inflammatory sore throat—about the fourth day of my attendance the mus cular pains extended to the face, difficulty of swallowing came on; the pains in the muscles covering the cervical vertebra became increased, as also did those of the muscles of the face and lower jaw; the muscles of the entire face, and particularly of the lower jaw—on the afternoon or evening of that day the jaw became completely locked, pains came on, and the muscles of the bowels the lame, and the legs and arms had become very much convulsed—throughout the entire muscular system he had frequent and violent contractions of the arms and hands, and afterwards the legs, and difficulty of swallowing, which was increased up to the 9th or 10th day—the symptoms increased, the difficulty of swallowing in particular, that not a particle of food, solid, or liquid, could be taken or introduced into the mouth, and on his attempting to swallow the smallest portion it brought on most violent convulsions, which were at times so strong throughout the whole system, that I could compare him to nothing more than a piece of warped board in shape—the head was thrown back, and the muscular covering of the bowels, the abdomen, was forced forward—the legs were forcibly thrown upwards and backwards; the attempt to feed him with a spoon, the opening of the window, or placing the fingers on the pulse, frequently brought on violent convulsions—he complained of great hunger.

COURT . Q. Was he able to speak? A. Yes; he repeatedly cried out that he was very hungry, what should he do, for he could not eat—that was his cry during the whole of his illness, and he was kept alive till the 14th day entirely by injections of a nutritive character—he screamed

during the convulsions, and the noises he made were like those of a dying man more than anything I could compare them to—about the 12th day he became insensible, the convulsions, although very weak to what they had been, continued to last till the 14th day, when he died.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Did you ascertain how long he had been affected with sore throat? A. Some few days, or it might be a week; he was an omnibus conductor—he had no other hurt or injury of any kind on his person which might account for those symptoms—his body was not examined after death.

COURT . Q. What do you call the disease? A. I call it inflammatory sore throat from cold and exposure to the weather—the symptoms became tetanic, in my opinion, in consequence of an extremely nervous, irritable and anxious disposition—he was a man with a very large family and a very hard-working man—I did not hear the evidence of the witnesses who described the symptoms of Mr. Cook—I ought to mention that the man buried a sister a fortnight previously, who died of pulmonic disease and pains down the cervical vertebræ—the family were in great trouble at the time, they would not allow a post mortem examination, and the body was not opened.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. That was what is commonly known among medical men by the name of idiopathic tetanus? A. Yes; I have had a vast number of cases of inflammatory sore throat, and a good many anxious, nervous patients to deal with—this is the only case I have ever seen of idiopathic tetanus, and the only case I have known of inflmmatory sore throat to run into that course of symptoms—the disease was altogether progressive in it's character, and although then was an occasional remission of the more painful symptoms, there never was a total intermission of the tetanic malady—sometimes for hours he was not suffering from the tetanic affection—there was a twitching of the muscles going on, but there was not that violent convulsion—there was an intermission of the strong convulsions, but still the twitchings going on in the interval—the lockjaw was the first of the more aggravated symptoms that presented itself, then the muscular spasms about the trunk of the body progressing onwards to the extremities—he was conscious until the tenth day, when insensibility supervened while the convulsions were upon him—I conceive that the brain had received the impression from the spinal marrow—congestion had taken place, and that produced insensibility, after which there was great diminution in the severity of the convulsions, but they still continued—from the constant recurrence of the convulsions the brain would become congested—whether I should expect to find a difference in that respect as regards the congestion of the brain, in a case where a man died very early in such a disease, or where the disease was spread over a longer period, would depend greatly on the violence of the convulsions and their repetition.

Adjourned.

Friday, May 23rd.

JOHN BROWN ROSS . I am house surgeon at the London Hospital—I recollect a case that was brought into the hospital on the 22nd March—it was brought to the hospital about half-past seven in the evening—it was a man aged thirty-seven, a labourer—he had had one paroxysm, a spasm, in the receiving room of our hospital before I saw him—he had a rapid but

feeble pulse, breathing quickly though not laboriously, the jaws were closed god fixed, there was an expression of anxiety about the countenance, and the features were sunken—he was unable to swallow—the muscles of the abdomen and back were somewhat tense—after he had been in the ward about ten minutes he had another paroxysm, spasm, and oposthotonos was well marked—that lasted about one minute—he was then quiet for a few minutes—he had then another and died—he had only been in the hospital about half an hour—an inquest was held on the body—the body was examined—no poison was found—the stomach was examined by Dr. Letheby—I attribute the death to tetanus—there were three wounds, two at the back of the right elbow about the size of a shilling each, and one on the left elbow about the size of a sixpence—the man told me he had had them about twelve or sixteen years—they were old chronic indurated ulcers, circular in outline, the edges thickened round, undermined and covered with a dirty white coating without any granulations—I am unable to say what produced those ulcers—I have seen other wounds like them in different parts of a body—I have seen old chronic syphilitic wounds in the legs of other patients similar to those in the elbow, but I cannot say that these were so—these wounds were the only things to account for tetanus—there was no other cause found.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Did his wife come with him? A. She did—I learnt from her that a poultice had been applied to this ulcer, I think a day or two before, I am not certain—I believe she had objected to the application of the particular poultice—she said so—it was linseed meal—the jaws were completely fixed when he came, so as to render him perfectly incapable of swallowing anything—he said he had first been taken with any symptoms about the jaws at dinner that morning, about eleven o'clock—he told me dinner, although he told my colleague breakfast, I do not know that he said the hour—he was able to speak, although he could not open his jaw—that is the case in cases of tetanus—there were also symptoms of rigidity when he was brought in, about the abdominal and lumbar muscles—I did not learn from him how long this rigidity had been coming on, further than that the first symptoms of the illness he had felt were that morning—that was lockjaw—he did not say how long he had felt this rigidity about the abdominal and lumbar region—I believe another gen tleman had seen the case previously, I gathered from the wife that the parish surgeon had seen him in the afternoon—he was a poor man, a labouring man—I gathered from her that the case in the afternoon had been such as to cause uneasiness, and to make them wish for advice—I have no doubt that the disease had been coming on from the morning—the sores were ugly sores certainly, sores of a chronic character, ulcers—there were two on the right elbow about the size of a shilling each—they were apparently running into one another, a piece of integument connected the two—they would be likely to run into one another eventually—by the sores being undermined I mean that the wounds continued under the skin—there were no signs of healing—they had the appearance of having been neglected, old neglected sores—they were near the site of the ulma nerve—that is a very sensitive nerve connected with what is called the "funny bone"—he had one paroxysm directly he came to the hospital, but I did not see it; and half an hour from that time he died—I believe he had had paroxysms before he came to the hospital, all the afternoon—it was not one continuous paroxysm—there was no twitching at all of the muscles of the legs and arms—those were not affected at all.

Q. You say be died from tetanus; what are the particular symptoms of the case to which you refer as indicative of death by tetanus? A. From the tetanic symptoms, and from having the wounds—putting aside the fact of his having the wounds, there were the tetanic spasms, there was the lock jaw and the muscles of the abdomen and the back also being rigid, and he complained of pain in his stomach, just over the stomach—I did not hear the account given of the symptoms of Mr. Cook's death.

MR. GROVE . Q. Was strychnia suspected in this case before the body was examined? A. It was.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Would an affection of the particular nerve we have been speaking of, the ulnar nerve, be peculiarly calculated to produce tetanus? A. Decidedly.

MR. GROVE . Q. Are the nerves of the tongue very delicate nerves? A. Yes, and in the throat and fauces there are very delicate nerves—I was here yesterday when a case was described of a sore throat that caused tetanus—that was produced by exposure to cold, it was therefore idiopathic—an injury to any delicate nerve would be a cause of tetanus.

RINERS MANTELL . I am one of the surgeons of the London Hospital The case that has been mentioned by Mr. Boss came under my care also—I saw it during the time it was in the hospital—I heard Mr. Ross describe its symptoms—that description was accurate—I heard him describe the wounds in the arm—that description wan also accurate—the disease which he had was tetanus—I formed a judgment that the sores on the arm produced the tetanus—he was in the hospital half an hour—there is a little discrepancy about the time at which the symptoms commenced; the man told me himself they commenced whilst he was at breakfast, but he did not state the hour; to Mr. Ross he said while he was at dinner, at 11 o'clock.

DR. FRANCIS WRIGHTSON . I was a pupil of Liebig, at Giessen in Germany—I am an analytical chemist, and teacher of chemistry at the School of Chemistry at Birmingham—in my chemical practice I have studied the nature and acquired a knowledge of poisons—I have been engaged by the Crown in a prosecution for poisoning—I was employed in that case to detect the supposed poison—I have made experiments in various poisons, strychnia amongst the rest—I have found no extraordinary difficulties in the detection of strychnia—in my opinion it is a poison to be detected by the usual tests—I have detected strychnia pure, and I have also discovered it when mixed with impurities, after separation from such impurities—I mean by impure, corrupted matter—I have detected it in mixtures of bile, bilious matter, and putrefying blood—I have turned my attention to the question, whether strychnia can be discovered in the tissues—it can—I have discovered it in the viscera of a cat poisoned by strychnia; also in the blood of a dog poisoned by strychnia; also in the urine of another dog poisoned by strychnia—I have heard the theory propounded by Dr. Taylor as to the decomposition of strychnia by the act of poisoning—I am of opinion that strychnia does not undergo decomposition in the act of poisoning.

COURT . Q. That it is not decomposed in the act of poisoning or on entering into the circulation? A. Yes.

MR. KENEALEY . Q. If it were decomposed in the act of poisoning, would it be possible to discover it in the tissues? A. I should say not—it might possibly be changed into a substance in which it would still be detectable—I have ascertained by experiments that you can discover portions of strych nia in extremely minute quantities indeed—in the case I first mentioned, as to the detection of strychnia in the blood, two grains were given to the dog—one

grain was given to the second dog in which we detected It in the urine—half a gram was attempted to be administered to the cat, but a considerable portion of it was lost, was spilt in the attempt.

Q. Assuming that a man was poisoned by strychnia, and that his stomach and a portion of his tissues were sent within eight, or nine, or ten days after death for analytical examination, do you, as a chemist, say that you could discover the poison of strychnia in his remains? A. I should have no doubt whatever in saying so.

COURT . Q. Generally, I suppose, if a man be poisoned by strychnia, you would generally expect to find it in the body? A. Precisely so.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. But do you confine it to generally? A. In the case stated by Mr. Kenealey, if a man had certainly been poisoned by strychnia I should certainly expect to detect it.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Suppose the whole of the dose given to be absorbed into the system, where would you expect to find it? A. In the blood—it passes from the blood into the solids of the body—allow me to explain; I should rather say that it was left in the solids of the body.

Q. What I mean to ask you is this; in its progress to its final destina tion, the destruction of life, does it pass from the blood, or is it left by the blood in the solid tissues of the body before it produces that effect? A. I cannot tell—if it be present in the stomach I should find it in the stomach; if it be present in the blood I should find it in the blood; if left by the blood in the tissues I should find it in the tissues—suppose it has passed from any one of these stages into the other, I cannot say that I should then no longer expect to find it—if the whole dose has passed from the stomach by the absorbents into the blood, and passed into the circulation, I should decidedly expect to find some in the stomac because I believe it exists as strychnia in the blood.

Q. You do not apprehend my question; suppose the whole dose to have been taken up by the absorbents, and passed into the circulation, do you say you would still expect to find any of it in the stomach? A. Only that portion which in order to be absorbed must be dissolved, and of course a portion of the fluid would surround the coats of the stomach; that portion I should expect to find, so far as it remained—suppose the whole to be absorbed, then I should not detect it—if it has been eliminated from the blood, and the whole of it passed into the urine, I certainly should not expect to detect it—if the whole has been absorbed from the stomach, I should not expect to find any in the stomach.

COURT . Q. You would expect to find it elsewhere, but not in the stomach? A. Yes—I should expect to find it in the blood and in the tissues.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Suppose the minimum of the dose that will destroy life, to have been given, and supposing hat to have been absorbed into the circulation and then deposited in the tissues, a part of it eliminated by the action of the kidneys, would you know where to search for it? A. I should search for it both in the blood and in the tissues, and in the ejecta from the kidneys; and from my experiments, I should expect to detect it in each of them—I should expect to find it in the urine, in case the urine was ejected during the time of poisoning.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Supposing you knew a man to have been killed by the poison of strychnia administered to him an hour and a half before he died, in your judgment would that certainly be detected in the stomach in

the first instance? A. Yes—supposing it to have been administered in the shape of pills, I cannot tell whether it would by that time have been all ab sorbed and circulated through the system so as to get out of the stomach—if it were so, I should find it in the blood, the liver, the kidneys, or the spleen.

Q. Could you form an opinion whether it could be detected under these circumstances on the coats of the stomach? A. Not knowing the dose administered, or the powers of absorption, I cannot say with absolute cer tainty that it would be detected, but I should think it in the highest degree probable, if a moderate dose bad been administered—I cannot give a decided opinion from the fact that death took place after one paroxysm, and in an hour and a half after the ingestion of the poison, whether it was a consider able or an inconsiderable dose.

COURT . Q. How do you suppose strychnia kills when it is taken into the stomach? A. I cannot form the slightest opinion—it goes from the stomach into the blood, and from the blood somewhere else, and on arriving at that somewhere else, it kills—I should think, by an examination of the blood as well as the stomach, that I ought to satisfy myself of its presence.

Q. If it is absorbed, where should you expect to find it? A. That is a point to which I cannot speak.

Q. Does it not result in this, that you cannot determine with certainty that it is not there, unless you examine the whole body? A. Not precisely; it ought to be found in the blood.

RICHARD PARTRIDGE . I have been for many years in practice as a sur geon; I have had an extensive practice; I am professor of anatomy at King's College. I have heard the evidence in this case as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook, and as to the post mortem examination—I heard that portion of the evidence which mentioned the examination of the spine—of course it is most important, in a case of death from convulsion, to examine the spinal cord shortly after death—I heard the statement as to the gritty granules that were found—I have no doubt that such granules would be likely to cause inflammation of the arachnoid membrane—such inflammation would have been discoverable if the spinal cord or its membranes had been exa mined shortly after death—if examined nine weeks after, it would not be likely to be discovered.

Q. Would such inflammation, if it existed by the granules, be capable of producing tetaniform convulsions? A. I have not seen such a case, but such cases are undoubtedly on record; I have read of them—the medical term for such inflammation of the arachnoid is meningitis, or arachuitis, inflammation of the membrane—that disorder produces convulsions and death; I should say not universally; it sometimes does not result in death; spasms of the muscles, oposthotonos are tetanic symptoms—I could not form any positive judgment as to the cause of death in Mr. Cook's case—I have heard the evidence as to the state of contraction after death.

Q. Could you form any judgment an to whether that is an exceptional state, or whether in death rigidity from natural causes is observed? A. There is every variety in that respect—no conclusion can be formed from the degree of contraction, or the kind of contraction, that I heard described.

COURT . Q. By no conclusion, do you mean no inference at all? A. None—I mean from the contracted state of the body after death—I speak merely with reference to the particular symptoms I have heard described during this case—if I found the back curved, and the body resting on its back and feet after death, I should infer that he died of that form of tetanus which convulses the muscles of the back; I should suppose he died from tetanus—when I say that

no inference can be drawn from the contracted state of the body after death, I speak with reference to the symptoms I have heard described, not as a general thing—I can conceive cases in which an inference might be drawn as to death by tetanus from the contracted state of the body after death.

MR. GROVE . Q. You were going to say something as to rigidity. A. Various degrees and varieties of rigidity occur after a natural death—the clenching of the hands or the semi-bending of the feet is very common in cases of ordinary death—the half-bent hand and fingers are not uncommon in natural death—the feet are generally pointed—the degree of arching, in this description seem to me to be rather more than usual.

COURT . Q. You answer very fairly and properly, as a man of science ought to do; but you are asked as to the arching of the feet? A. Arching of the feet is met with not unfrequently.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Where do you under stand these granules, from which you say arachnitis might have pro ceeded, were situate in the deceased man? A. If I understand rightly, they were situated on the inner surface of the fibrous investment of the cord—I understood so—granules are not commonly found in the human subject in these parts—they are sometimes—arachnitis, producing con vulsions, has never come under my own personal observation—it has not satisfactorily come under my observation without producing convulsions—it is a rare disease—I am not enabled to state, from the recorded oases, the course of the symptoms of the disease—the cases have varied in duration—the period commonly has been days, at the shortest—it is accompanied with paralysis, if they live—it does not produce any effect upon the brain by sympathy, manifestly, I mean, not recognizable after death—it would not affect the brain by sympathy, or otherwise, prior to death—I do not know whether it is attended with loss of sensibility before death—in these eases, where granules have produced arachnitis, they have varied, in point of size, in different cases—suppose them to be very small and minute, I should think there would be less likelihood of their producing inflammation—I should not conclude there was inflammation without an appearance of it—supposing decomposition of the part not to have commenced, but that it was found in its complete integrity, and I found no trace of inflammation of the spinal cord, I should not feel myself warranted in inferring it.

Q. I will put any period short of decomposition—supposing the spinal cord examined, and the decomposition had not commenced, and, in fact, no trace of inflammation in that part, would you be warranted in inferring any? A. Allow me to say that you are putting an impossible case; the spinal cord could not remain in its integrity after that period.

COURT . Q. The limit of time is prior to decomposition; that is the terminus to which you are to direct your attention? A. Then it might be observed.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Suppose in that case you see no inflammation, would you be warranted in inferring it? A. No—the shortest period in which arachnitis kills is a matter of days—that is my impression—it some times extends to months, where the dose does not kill; not otherwise, unless it terminates in palsy.

COURT . Q. When it kills, how long may it last? A. It may go on for months.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Does it not affect the patient by a series of recurring convulsions? A. That varies—J never knew, or heard, or read of a case in which the patient died after a single convulsion of arachnitis—I

cannot say whether it would affect the rest of the system or the general health—I do not believe that a man could have twenty-four hours of com plete repose between the convulsions—I have no personal knowledge what would be likely to be the symptoms produced, independently of convulsions, by inflammation of the spinal cord—I should expect to find great pain in the back sometimes, but I have no personal knowledge—the symptoms I should expect would be pain, associated with spasm and palsy—palsy would come on last—I am not aware whether the health of the system would be in any other respect affected than by the reproduction of the con vulsions; I cannot answer—that in the interval between the convulsions he could be quite well—there would be pain and uneasiness, according to where the convulsions were situated, according to the situation of the muscles convulsed; the back usually—I should not expect complete repose from convulsions for a period of twenty-four hours—I have heard the symptoms stated, and have heard that, from the midnight of Monday till Tuesday Mr. Cook had complete repose—I should think that Mr. Cook's death did not proceed from arachnitis—the majority of the symptoms are not associated with arachnitis.

Q. You mentioned that there were one or two of the appearances after death in Cook's case, which would be common to other cases, such as the semi-closing of the hand—have you ever known, except in a case of tetanus, the hand after death completely clenched, so as to require force to take the fingers away from the hand? A. No, I have not—I have never seen a case of idiopathic tetanus—in traumatic tetanus I have seen the hand clenched; not so much as that—they often require a great deal of force to be straightened—the arching of the feet occasionally takes place in death—I have often noticed it—I have never known the feet to be so distorted as to be described by a medical man as assuming the form of a club foot—I heard the description given by Mr. Jones, that, when this man died, the body was bowed, so that, if he had turned it from its side upon its back, it would have rested on its head, and on its heels—I have no doubt that that indicates death from tetanus; from that form of tetanic spasm—I am acquainted with the symptoms that accompany death from tetanus resulting from the administration of strychnia, only by reading and hearsay.

Q. From your knowledge of the subject, having attended to the symptoms described by Mr. Jones from the moment the paroxysms set in of which Mr. Cook died, and the symptoms and appearances attending his death, does it appear to you that those symptoms are consistent with death by strychnia? A. Some are consistent and some are inconsistent—one of those which are in consistent is the long interval which occurred after the taking of the poison—the symptoms described by Mr. Jones are quite consistent with what I know of death by strychnia—I quite agree in the description that has been given by various witnesses that the symptoms of traumatic tetanus come on gradually and progressively, and that, although they are remitted, the disease is never wholly intermitted—I have never known the disease of traumatic tetanus to run its course to death under three or four days, within my experience—if a case were described as of shorter duration, such as a day or a few hours, I should consider it probable that the premonitory symptoms had very likely been neglected—I have never witnessed a complete case of death from strychnia, either in animals or in human life.

Q. Bearing in mind the distinction between traumatic and idiopathic tetanus, and a case such as has been here described, in the whole course of your experience or knowledge have you ever seen such a death as this, with

the symptoms that have been mentioned, proceed from natural causes? A. No.

MR. GROVE . Q. You were going to state, when you were stopped, those symptoms that you considered inconsistent with strychnia, and you men tioned the time after the attack came on—will you go on and mention what other symptoms you consider inconsistent? A. The sickness manifested before the attack came on, the beating the bed clothes with the arms, want of sensitiveness to external impressions, and the sudden cessation of the con vulsions, and apparent complete recovery—I think those are the principal points—I mentioned previously the distance of time that occurred between the ingestion of the poison and the coming on of the symptoms, I assume that to have been about an hour.

Q. As to the mode in which it came on without premonitory symptoms, do you consider that is inconsistent with strychnia? A. There was appa rently an absence of the usual nervous and muscular agitation that is described—I stated to the Attorney-General that the bent form of the feet indicated some tetaniform spasm—that answer applied as well to natural tetaniform spasm as to that produced by strychnia—that would be the case whether it was a tetaniform spasm with poison or without poison.

COURT . Q. The other symptoms of rigidity, though indicating death by tetanus, would appear if death arose either from natural tetanus, if I may call it so, or from poison? A. Yes—it is rather a question of degree—oposthotonos arises from natural tetanus, but it would be more violent if from strychnia.

MR. GROVE . Q. Do the symptoms of convulsive disorders arising from injury to the spine, vary considerably in their character in different cases? A. I only know by reading, they do vary, according to the muscles affected; they vary in their degree of violence, and in the periods of intermission, and in the nature of the particular muscles attacked.

Q. You have stated that in the cases of tetanus you have seen, there was no intermission of the disease—do you know, from your reading, that the intermission of the disease is not an unfrequent thing in traumatic tetanus? A. I know it occurs, but it is not frequent—I do not remember cases of arach nitis in which death took place in a period of fifteen hours—I do not bear in mind whether forty-eight hours is an uncommon time for such disorders—such granules as are described are more unusual in young people than in old people—I cannot tell whether they are more indicative of disease when seen in young people than in old—I do not know of any case in which the spine would preserve its integrity as long as nine weeks—I should not feel myself justified in saying that there was no disease from an examination made at that period.

COURT . Q. Suppose you saw the spine entirely free from decompo sition, maintaining its integrity, and you saw no symptoms of disease, would you infer that there had been any at the time of death? A. I should not.

MR. GROVE . Q. What is the usual period at which decomposition sets in? A. It varies very much, from a few hours to a few days, according to the temperature and various things—I do not think it in the least probable that it could remain for nine weeks undecomposed.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. If the stomach had been brought by any other cause into a state of irritation by any other means, would you think sickness inconsistent with the use of strychnia? A. I should think it not inconsistent.

JOHN GAY . I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons—I was for between seventeen and eighteen years a surgeon of the Royal Free Hospital—I

hare ceased to be so for two years—I had under my care a ease of traumatic tetanus in a boy—it was in the year 1843—he was eight years old, and was in the hospital—he was brought in during the time he was ill—I took rough notes of the case at the time, it is so many years since, that I quite forget—may I refer to the notes?—he was brought in on the 28th July and died on the 2nd Aug.—the acci dent occurred a week before he was brought in—during the first three days he had the usual paroxysms, but unusually severe—I saw him on the 28th July—his mother complained when he came in that he could not open his mouth—he complained of great pain and stiffness about the neck—during the first night of his admission he started up convulsed, and spasmodically closed his jaw—I suppose it had been relaxed in the meantime—during the following night he was again convulsed at times—the abdominal muscles, as well as the muscles of the neck and back, had become rigid during the night—the muscles of the face were also in a state of great contraction—on the following day I found that the muscles remained in the same state—in the morning of the third day at 2 o'clock, on visiting him, I found there was much less rigidity of the muscles, especially those of the abdomen and back—the following morning the muscular rigidity had gone—he opened his mouth as wide as usual and was able to talk—the lad appeared to be thoroughly relieved—he had no return of the spasm until the following day; at that time he asked the nurse to change his linen, and as she was lifting him up in bed to do so, violent convulsions of the arms and face came on, and he died in a few minutes—from the time at which the convulsions of which he died came on, and the last preceding convulsions, I should say about thirty hours elapsed; it would be difficult to say exactly—the last paroxysm before he died lasted a few minutes—before that paroxysm came on, the rigidity I describe had been completely relaxed—it was merely the act of lifting him up in bed to change his linen which caused it—in this case, I had given the patient something to produce vomiting—the second day I gave him, in order to produce vomiting, small doses of tartar emetic, and they produced no effect—I gave a grain on the following day—I repeated them in larger doses—they produced no effect, that is, they did not pro duce vomiting—two grains of tartar emetic I gave to the child of eight years old—I did not repeat it after the third day—I thought there was no necessity for it.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. We have not heard, and I think it is desirable we should know, what was the accident which caused the tetanus? A. It was an accident by which the toe was smashed—a large stone fell on the middle toe of the left foot, and had completely smashed it—the wound bad become very unhealthy, very much so—when first I saw it, it had portions of bone and cartilage adhering to the surface—I amputated the toe at the time he was brought the mother said that he could not open his mouth so wide as usual—that I think first attracted the mother's attention—when I saw him the mouth was almost closed up—I have a recollection of the case—the jaw remained closed until 1st August—when I administered tartar emetic to him the jaw was closed in all these cases; so small a quantity as the tartar emetic is easily got into the mouth—the tongue seems to retain its powers—I should say that the case is recorded in "The Lancet"—the convulsions came on during the night of the 29th July, and they appear to have remitted during the day, except the rigidity, the tetanic symptoms remaining—there were no spasms during the day-time, I believe, but I never was in the habit of recording medical evidence—in the day-time, although there were no convulsions, the

muscles of the body, of the chest, and of the abdomen, back, and neck were all rigid—that continued throughout the two days that I administered tartar emetic—the rigidity of the muscles of the chest and stomach would, I have no doubt, go far to prevent sickness—if rigidity of those muscles had not set up, I should have expected that the boy would have vomited from so large a dose—I have no doubt it would have done so except from the rigidity of the muscles—the symptoms began to abate on lit Aug., the fourth day, and they gradually subsided during the night—I saw the child during the middle of the day, and I found from the nurse that the rigidity of the muscles had entirely gone off—I thought he was going to get well.

Q. You told us the woman sat him up in bed for the purpose of changing his linen; might that in any way have brought the toe, that part affected at least, into friction with some parts of the bed? A. No, I think not—it might have done so certainly, but I do not think the simple irritation of the toe would have any effect in producing tetanic symptoms—if the cause had not entirely gone, the symptoms were brought back by the act of sitting up in bed—my impression is, there must be some action about the spinal cord as the immediate cause of the spasm or convulsions; action set up in the spinal cord by irritation of the nerves in the immediate seat of the laceration or wound.

Q. May it not be reasonable to infer that any irritation of the part originally injured, exciting and irritating the nerve or nerves connected with that part, may support its action over the whole system to the spinal cord, and so produce the symptoms? A. I had removed the end of the injured nerve, so I suppose that the same cause could not exist.

Q. If you feel yourself justified in saying that the irritation of the spiral cord once set up continues, why should you infer that the irritation of the nerve may not also continue? A. There must be some peculiar irritation of the nerve to affect the spinal cord from which tetanus arises, or else it would be more frequently produced—there appear to be some particular circumstances under which it is produced—I have no doubt the state of the toe was the original cause of the convulsions, and that death took place by something or other from that first cause.

MR. GRAY . Q. I think you told my friend that, with regard to the convulsions which ended in death, you thought they arose from some irrita tion set up in the spinal cord? A. did; I said, from that and other causes—the causes of such irritation in the spinal cord which would end in a tetaniform convulsion may, I think, be very various.

Q. Do you think it is possible, merely from a death with symptoms of a tetaniform character, from the observation you have had, to ascribe them to any particular cause? suppose you have a death accompanied with tetaniform symptoms and oposthotonos, and other symptoms of a tetanic character, in the absence of any knowledge of the cause, namely, the irritation of the spinal cord, do you think it is possible to ascribe them to any particular cause? A. I think it would be extremely difficult to do so, probably impossible—in the event of a given set of symptoms, tetanic symptoms, being proposed, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, without some other evidence, or collateral evidence, to assign it to any given diseas or cause.

DR. WILLIAM M'DOLNALD . I am a licentiate of the College of Surgeons at Edinburh, and have been in practice about eight years—during that time I have had considerable experience at home and abroad—I have had practical as well as theoretical knowledge of tetanus, idiopathic and traumatic—I have seen two cases of idiopathic tetanus—in addition to those, I have

made tetanus a subject of medical research—tetanus will proceed from very slight causes, almost any internal disorder or alteration of the secretions will produce idiopathic tetanus—exposure to cold or damp will produce it, and mental excitement would be a probable cause.

COURT . Q. Without any organic disturbance? A. Mental excitement will cause an organic disturbance—mental excitement would be a proxi mate cause of tetanus, and sensual excitement also—the presence of gritty particles or granules in any portion of the body connected with the nervous structure of the spine or the brain, would produce tetanic convulsions—I have seen several slight miliary tubercles, the only assignable cause for death, terminating in convulsions.

MR. KENEALEY . Q. In addition to the slight causes you have mentioned, do you believe that tetanic convulsions arise from causes that are as yet quite undiscoverable by human science? A. Quite so, it is a disease the true origin of which is involved in deep mystery—I have had many post mortem examinations of patients who have died of tetanus, and no trace of any disease whatever could be discovered, beyond the congestion or vascu larity of some of the vessels surrounding the nerves—though tetanus is not easily discoverable, strychnia is discoverable very easily by a scientific man.

Q. Allow me to call your attention to a case of idiopathic tetanus of your own; do you remember the case of the female, Catherine Watson, who is here? A. Yes, I was fortunate enough to restore her—to tell you the symptoms of that case, I had better read my notes—they were made at the time—this is a copy of them—( reads : "Case of idiopathic tetanus occurring in a female aged twenty-two, with recovery; no cause of disease traceable, Oct. 20th, 1855. Was asked to see Catherine Watson at Garnkirk, a pre viously healthy and muscular young woman; was informed that she was so much cramped in stomach, arms, and legs, that if not soon relieved she would die. I saw her at half-past ten, p.m.: she was then fearfully convulsed; body arched on head and heels; face livid and swollen; tipper extremities rigid, the left more so than the right, which could be flexed with a little force; respiration hurried; pulse irregular, from 120 to 130, firm and bounding; partial sensibility present. I asked her if she could take a drink? She tried, but could not swallow. I at once opened a vein and bled freely, The pricking of the lancet brought on a spasm, as during my examination there was a relaxation from the arched spasm, the abdomen and extremities still being rigid; the bleeding caused a longer interruption than any she had had, as I was informed. Convulsions, ushered in with an involuntary shriek, then set in, and the body was drawn to left side; jaws set firm together. Seeing this, I began to give her chloroform in drachm doses, and about an ounce was inhaled ere any decided impression was made. The spasms then relaxed, and she lay quiet, with an anxious expression of coun tenance; abdomen and extremities still rigid. If I omitted the chloroform for a short time, the spasms returned with great force; I then steadily gave the chloroform, pouring on another dose when the vapour of the previous one was exhausted, until I finished all I had, about four ounces. At this time, half-past two, a.m., I left her asleep, having sent off a messenger for another supply, in case of a return of the spasms. I visited her three times during the day, but found her asleep. She slept for thirty-six hours con tinuously, and awoke complaining of great soreness over all her body, particularly extremities. Mouth was contorted, drawn to left side; purgatives were given, which brought away fæces of a dark colour and disagreeable odour; and in a few days she recovered—mouth gradually

assuming its natural form. Catamenie regular; had been unwell a few days previously; bowels had been freely open day of attack; had gone about her usual duties till the evening, although she had felt dull in spirits for a day or two previous; she had eaten nothing but a little toast with tea all day. No cause for illness can be traced, unless the weather, which is chilly and cold, may account for it. Her position, and absence of all motive forbid the idea of strychnia having been used.")

MR. KENEALEY . Q. In that case was there no trismus? A. I have men tioned here that trismus set in—I cannot exactly say when; I think it was about 12 or 1 o'clock, but about the middle of the attack—she was able to speak—in acute idiopathic cases trismus is generally a later symptom—in an attack ending fatally I should expect it to be among the later symptoms—I had a patient who died from a convulsive attack of this kind—his name was Copeland—his case must have been idiopathic tetanus—there was no external cause—the death took place in somewhat less than half an hour—I cannot say exactly, as the patient was dead before I could reach the house.

COURT . Q. Do you know of your own knowledge what the cause of the disease was? A. Yes, I examined the patient carefully, and made inquiry as to the appearances and symptoms.

MR. KENEALEY . Q. Have you made a number of experiments on animals with reference to strychnia poison? A. I have, and have very generally found the post mortem appearances to concur—the vessels of the membranes of the brain are generally highly congested, the sinuses gorged with blood, and in one case I had hæmorrhage from the nostrils—that would indicate a very high state of congestion—I have found extravasation of blood on the brain in some cases likewise—I have cut through the substance of the brain, and in doing so found numerous red points—that is the general result—I have a list of twelve here.

Q. I wish to have merely the general result; is there any other pecu liarity with reference to the brain that attracted your attention, or have you comprised all? A. I think I have comprised all that I can recollect—I have found the lungs of those animals either collapsed or congested—the heart invariably filled on the right side with blood, and very often on the left—the liver in those animals has been congested, the kidneys normal and healthy; the spleen normal generally, in a natural ordinary condi tion; the vessels of the stomach on the outer surface congested, and on the mucous or inner surface, highly vascular—that is, the vessels filled with florid and red blood, giving a red or inflamed appearance, deeper in some places than in others; the vessels of the spinal cord congested, the vessels of the membranes; and also a red point seen on cutting it through, but not invariably—these symptoms, or rather appearances, on post mortem examina tion, are not always a true test of the cause of death—symptoms are a different thing altogether—you may judge of the cause of death from a post mortem examination, but not always—you can generally give an opinion—I have experimented in a great many cases for the discovery of strychnia—you may discover in the stomach of an animal the smallest dose that will kill the animal; if you kill an animal with a grain of strychnia, you may discover traces of it.

COURT . Q. I think your proposition is, that, wherever a man is killed by strychnia, that strychnia may be discovered? A. Yes.

MR. KENEALEY . Q. What do you mean by a trace of it? A. Evidence of its presence—that may mean an imponderable quantity—I mean by trace to convey the idea that I can discover the smallest quantity that will

kill—I can discover the fifty-thousandth part of a grain—I have actually experimented so as to discover that quantity—I have heard a theory in the course of this inquiry which has been propounded by Dr. Taylor; to my knowledge, as a scientific man, that has not been propounded by any eminent chemist before; I mean the supposed decomposition of strychnia.

Q. To your knowledge, has any scientific man of eminence ever pro pounded that theory before? A. No—I first ascertained that that theory had been propounded by any one, in this Court—speaking scientifically, in my opinion there is no well-grounded reason for the theory of the decompo sition of strychnia, on absorption—I have proved that that theory is false, by numerous experiments—I have taken the blood of an animal poisoned with two grains of strychnia, about the least quantity that would kill an animal, and have injected it into the abdominal cavities of smaller animals, and have destroyed them, with all the symptoms and post mortem appearances of death by strychnia—I can read you a few of those experiments, if you wish it—this paper contains a summary of the proofs which, at all events, to my own satisfaction, disprove that theory—I have made numerous experi ments in different ways, and have long known it—I should, think it would make no difference how strychnia is administered—if the pills were hard, and not readily solved, you might find it much easier, because you might find some remains of the pill.

Q. Would its administration in pills have the effect of keeping its parts together, and thereby strengthen the possibility of detection? A. It would—by keeping the parts undissolved you might find some remains more easily—I have heard what Dr. Taylor said was his opinion about the fallacy of colour tests—I do not agree with him in that opinion—colour tests an reliable modes of ascertaining strychnia—I have found it invariably in urine that had been ejected—part of it may be thrown off by the kidneys—it is not true that strychnia can be confounded with pyroxanthine—in the animals which I killed with strychnia I observed generally an increased flow of saliva—that was a very marked symptom—those creatures were very susceptible of touch; a stamp of the foot, a slight touch, or a breath or a sharp word, throwing them into tonic convulsions—we generally recognise them by the stiffened condition of the muscles, it is a marked convul sion—supposing that a dose of strychnia sufficient to kill a man were admi nistered to him, having his neck rubbed would be very likely to throw him into convulsions even before the paroxysm came on.

COURT . Q. As soon as the poison is taken into his stomach, would that effect be produced, as soon as he has swallowed the poison? A. No—after a certain time—you, of course, have the first symptoms of poisoning produced first—you have the first symptoms of tetanus produced before he is in danger of being thrown into convulsions by the neck being rubbed.

MR. KENEALEY . Q. That would not give him any kind of relief? A. I do not think so, judging from experiments I have made—a man pulling a bell violently, if he was poisoned by strychnia, would, I think, be extremely improbable, if the dose had been sufficient to destroy life, provided the symptoms had made their appearance; always premising that—I agree with Mr. Herapath that where strychnia is taken in a sufficient dose to poison, it can and ought to be discovered—I have heard the evidence that was given in this case; the medical evidence, and the evidence as to the symptoms—the symptoms I attach very little importance to, as a means of diagnosis, as we may have the same symptoms developed from many different causes—that is the only reason with regard to the symptoms, so far as the symptoms

are concerned; but there is one principal reason I have, which is this: a dose of strychnia, sufficient to destroy life in one paroxysm, would hardly require an hour and a half, or two hours—as to the cause of death in this case, the principal argument is—

COURT . We do not want your argument; we want your opinion: you are asked what is your opinion as to the cause of death.

MR. KENEALEY . Q. Now tell us the grounds of that opinion. A. The cause of death was epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications—that is the nearest approach, from my reading, and from the post mortem appearances in Cook's case being so different from those I have described previously, and from the supposition that a dose of strychnia sufficient to destroy life in one paroxysm could not, so far as I am aware, have required even an hour for its absorption; that is, for its action—the interval of repose from the Monday night to the Tuesday would operate on my judgment in coming to that conclusion, if my opinion that it was of an epileptic character were correct—the intermission from the Monday night would be considered important, as epileptic seizures very often recur about the same hours, as I have seen them—assuming that a man was in such an excitable state of mind that he was silent for two or three minutes after his hone winning a race, that he exposed himself to cold and damp, that he excited his brain by drink ing, and was attacked by violent vomiting, and that there were bony de posits or gritty granules found in the neighbourhood of his spine, any one of those causes might aggravate or hurry his death.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Where do you practise? A. At Chryston, near Glasgow—I am a general practitioner there, and surgeon to the Garnkirk works—that is not a public institution—I am medical officer to the pariah—I have had personal experience of two cases of idiopathic tetanus; this one that I have recorded, and another—I have only seen two cases—what have been telling you about mental excitement, sensual excitement, and granules; is not within my own observation; they seldom occur to any medical practitioner—we have had many medical practitioners examined here, who have not seen them at all—I have not seen them—this case which I have recorded might have arisen from mental anxiety—I have no reason to think it did—Catherine Watson I saw about half-past 10 o'clock at night—she had been ill very nearly an hour, I suppose, before I saw her—she had convulsions—she had gone about her usual duties until the evening—she felt a slight las situde for two days previous to the attack—I could only press her to that acknowledgment in my anxiety to get at the symptoms—she would not own to anything being the matter with her—she would say very little—it was only by close pressing that she could call it to mind—she did not call to mind that she had felt any stiffness—this was the night I was called in—the lock jaw came on, I think, in an hour or two, I could not be positive—I could not make any minute inquiries—the case occupied all my attention—the other case, named Copeland, was a young child of, I think, between three and four months old—I saw it in good health half an hour before the attack came on; I was attending the mother—it had an attack of convulsions and opo sthotonos—it had the remains of the rigis subdonœum when I saw it—I rode away from the house, and they supposed I had gone a mile from the house or a couple of miles when it died—it was seized with a spasm, which I con jectured to be of the diaphragm—I had seen it half an hour before—there was nothing the matter with it then; it was in bed—the mother was laid up, and I think the child was lying in the bed—I did not see it—I saw it lying in bed, but I did not examine it—I do not recollect whether

I saw its face—I saw the child—I did not see its face—I saw it asleep in bed—I judged it to be asleep.

Q. Is that the same thing as seeing it asleep? A. Very near—you must recollect, we medical men can form a judgment on such a subject better than lawyers or any one else—I was applied to in this case in January—Mr. Smith applied to me—I can hardly say how he found me out—I communi cated this case of Catherine Watson to him, as resembling the symptoms of what I had read of Mr. Cook's death, as being nearly the same—I furnished I my notes just now, the night before last I think—I have been here about a week, from the beginning of the trial, attending daily, and, of course, at the consultations.

Q. You wrote to Mr. Smith, sending this case? A. I suppose Mr. Smith may produce the minutes of the case, my original notes.

Q. I do not mean to suggest that there has been any alteration of the notes; do not suppose that for a moment; with regard to the cases of the animals that you experimented on with strychnia, when did you begin the series you have been describing? A. I began this series of experiments for this case in January—the experiments I had made before, I think, eight or ten years ago—it was at the time I discovered that strychnia could be de tected in the blood by vital or physiological tests—the doses with which I killed the animals on which I experimented, were, I think, from a grain and three-quarters to two grains—the animals were dogs, cats, rabbits, and fowls—this series of experiments all relate to dogs—I administered from three quarters of a grain to two grains—a grain is the smallest dose I gave, and two grains is the largest—I made four experiments with a grain, five with a grain and a half, one with a grain and a quarter, and two with two grains—I gave some of them half a grain, but to the dogs one grain was the minimum and two the maximum.

Q. You tried with half a grain in that series of experiments? A. I did it for the purpose of ascertaining the least dose that would kill.

Q. Did you try to see whether there was any strychnia there? A. How could I before I killed the dog?

Q. Do you mean, on your oath, to tell me you do not understand my question? A. Repeat it again—perhaps I slipped it—upon my oath I may have slipped it.

Q. Do you-mean, standing there as a witness in this Court, you do not know the question I put to you? A. I have perhaps forgotten the question—was it, did I detect half a grain of strychnia?

Q. Do you mean to say that you believe that to be the question I put to you—on your solemn oath do you believe it? A. On my solemn oath I understood you to ask me if I had detected half a grain in a dog.

Q. I asked you whether in that case you gave the minimum dose, and had afterwards tried to find the strychnia by your chemical process? A. De cidedly—I gave five or six doses—I began with a quarter or half a grain to discover the smallest quantity that would kill—I tried to find the strychnia afterwards in some cases—they are enumerated among these—I did not make a note of those where I have given half a grain, because it did not kill—in that series I have not one with less than a grain, not for the finishing the killing—those are the doses with which I kill the animal—this does not apply to this series of experiments.

Q. I want you to show me a note of your having killed a dog with half a grain, and finding the strychnia afterwards? A. I have killed upwards of forty animals, and there were a dozen for the purpose of finding it on the post

mortem symptoms—I have never destroyed a dog with half a grain of strychnia; I could not; I have tried it, and it did not answer—I say that I have always found the brain highly congested—I ascribe that to the stop page of the circulation in the system; the spasms impede the circulation—it is the spasms of all the muscles together which produce that congestion—the spasms of the legs and arms would help to do it—the immediate cause of the fulness of the heart after death is not that the respiratory muscles are arrested in their action, and the lungs cannot play; the immediate cause of the fulness of the heart is this, the violence of the spasm drives the blood out of the smaller capillaries into the large vessels of the cavity, and you find all the large vessels distended, and in most cases you find the lungs entirely collapsed, you rarely find them congested, sometimes you do, the respiratory muscles prevent the play of the lungs, from being expanded—I have not found in some cases that the brain was not congested—I think in every case there was more or less congestion—I do not find that to be greater in proportion to the length of the paroxysm; I find it to be greatest where the animal is young and in a full state of health—there would be this difference, that, according to the age of the animal and the state of health, there would be more or less fulness of blood—I have seen a case of traumatic tetanus; I think two in my own practice, but I have seen a few others in hospital—one of them, in my own practice, lasted about five or six days, I cannot remember the particulars—I think the other recovered—the paroxysms lasted six or seven days, and he eventually recovered—it is a long time ago, and I have not a note of the case, I could not be precise about it—I have never seen a case of strychnia in the human subject.

Q. I understand you to say, that, in your opinion, this was a case of epilepsy? A. As far as I can judge from hearing the evidence in Court, I think it was a case of epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications.

Q. What does epilepsy proceed from. A. Nobody can answer you that question—I have not exactly arrived at any definite theory on the subject; not quite so definite as strychnia or tetanus; it is buried in mystery—I have seen one case of death from epilepsy—the patient was not conscious when he died—I have seen only one death from epilepsy—I can refer you to Dr. Goode's work, where you find instances of consciousness during epileptic attacks—I cannot recollect whether the patient was conscious when he died—I cannot recollect any case in which consciousness has preceded death.

Q. You have studied this matter—I suppose you are pretty well up in this branch of your profession? A. I am pretty well up in most branches of my profession—I do not know of any single recorded case of consciousness at the time of death, not from my own knowledge—I do not know of any case—I heard what Sir Benjamin Brodie said, and several gentlemen who have been examined on both sides, that they could not refer the symptoms of Mr. Cook's attacks to any known disease—I think I heard Sir Benjamin Brodie say he never had a case of idiopathic tetanus—I heard what Mr. Par tridge said, and I have given you my opinion candidly and openly—I have given you my opinion that it was, as far as I can learn, a death from epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications.

COURT . Q. Is that a disease known among medical men? Q. Yes; you will find it in all medical works, you will find it in "Copland's Dictionary."

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. That is the gentleman of whom we have heard once or twice? A. I presume so, you will find it in almost every work on convulsions—I have not made any application to Dr. Copland in

this case—I have his work, which I have studied occasionally at home—I mean to state that I believe this death to have been a death from epilepsy.

Q. Without being able to refer to any cause whatever as producing that disease? A. When I have told you before that deaths often take place in idiopathic tetanus without leaving any trace behind, I think I may say—

Q. That is idiopathic tetanus, I am speaking of epilepsy? A. Or epileptic convulsions, they are all of the same class—you ask me what epilepsy is, I believe that epilepsy and tetanic convulsions, and all forms of convulsions arise from a decomposition of the blood, and that if a person has probably an incipient tendency to disease of the brain that organ may be affected, or any other organ, and that the decomposition of the blood may set up the diseased action in that other organ.

COURT . Q. We should like to understand this, will you just repeat what you have said? A. I believe that all convulsive diseases, including the epileptic forms and the various tetanic complications (that will include all), arise from a decomposition of the blood, and that this decomposed Mood acts on the nerves.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Did I understand you that in your opinion mental excitement had anything to do with this? A. I did not say it had, I said it might have had—I said it might have caused it; that it was within the range of probability that it might have caused the convulsive attack—any mental excitement might—it is stated that he was subject to excitement—I find that at Shrewsbury he was excited, and, wherever you have excitement, you have a consequent depression—when you find a mat lying in bed sick and vomiting, he must be depressed—if I have much ex citement, if I am up all night, it upsets me the next day, and I generally vomit the food I take—Cook was overjoyed at winning his race; he might have vomited in consequence, if he had the same predisposition that I have, the same dyspeptic symptoms—I do not mean to say that the excitement of the three minutes on the course on the Tuesday accounts for the vomiting on Wednesday night—there is nothing reported of any excitement or de pression from that time till the time he died, that I can recollect just now—a person may be joking and laughing and still be subject to bilious fits.

Q. We are not talking now about bilious fits, we are talking of excitement, as a consequence of epilepsy, with tetanic complications—I want to know on what you can put your hand in the whole history of the roan's symptoms in the way of excitement or depression, which will account for that remark able physiological phenomena? A. I have told you that almost any one of the circumstances found might cause it—in many cases we can discover no traces at all—we cannot in many cases discover the cause—I give a series of causes which I say might account for it—those causes were stated to have been present in this case—one was those white spots that were seen in the stomach—those might have caused the convulsions—they might have been the means—we often find that an inflammatory condition of the stomach acts upon the brain—we heard about these white spots—Dr. Harland described them—if those white spots were present in the stomach you must have had inflammation—you never can have those white spots without inflammation—if they say there was none, I do not believe them—sensual excitement might be a cause of epileptic convulsion with tetanic complications—I think there is evidence of this man having undergone such excitement, when you have the chancre and syphilitic

sores, there is no doubt about it—I am not called upon to say whether that excitement had taken place at some anterior period; I take my opinion from what was seen on him—supposing the man had intercourse of the description I mention, a week before, that is sufficient to account for epilepsy, with these peculiarities—we have instances on record where convulsions have supervened on the very act you allude to—I have no instance of its setting in a fortnight afterwards, but it is quite within the range of possibility.

COURT . Q. Am I to take down that it is within the range of possibility that within a fortnight after sexual intercourse, that might bring on tetanic convulsions? A. The results of the sensual excitement.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. What are the results of sensual ex citement? A. You have seen the results; I have described them—chance is one of them, and syphilitic sore-throat—I do not mean that—the chances here caused the epilepsy—I have never known a chancre cause epilepsy—I have never heard of it—I never heard of any other form of syphilis producing epilepsy, but tetanus; you are forgetting the tetanic com plications.

Q. Then, if I understand it right, it stands thus—that the sensual excitement produces the epilepsy, and the chancre superadda the tetanic complications. A. You have misquoted me; I say the results of the sensual excitement.

Q. Is there anything else to which you can ascribe this extraordinary death, which several medical men have said could not be ascribed to any known form of disease? A. I have only given my opinion; I have said it might have been that—I did not volunteer, in this case, to come and give evidence—I wrote and sent up the notes of the case—I did not propose to come as a witness, nor did I want to come; I was particularly asked to come—I cannot recollect reading of cases, where the death has arisen from strychnia, where there was so long a period as an hour and a half between the taking of the poison and the appearance of the symptoms—in the case read the other day from the Lancet , by Dr. Taylor, the symptoms appeared an hour after the administration; I said, an hour and a half—I heard the case stated in evidence of the girl at Glasgow—if I recollect rightly, the first symptoms appeared in twenty minutes, and in three quarters of an hour she was dead, I believe—I cannot recollect reading of any instance in which the symptoms have come on so late—the fact of morphia having been given for an hour or two previously, would not, in my opinion, in any way retard the action of the poison; I have seen opium bring on convulsions very nearly the same; I think a grain and a half—I think that would have an effect, judging from my experience; opium will bring on convulsions, but a different form of convulsions from epilepsy—I think it would accelerate the action of the poison—judging from my experience of the effects of opium, I think it would bring on convulsions, epileptic convulsions.

Q. Then, because opium brings on epileptic convulsions, you assume in this case that morphia accelerated the disease? A. Drawing that inference, I should say it might—that is what I mean—in some oases morphia stimulates—in this case it was exceedingly apt to cause congestion of the brain—and, as the action of strychnia causes congestion, we might have had the two working together—it may cause excitement—it depends on the idiosyncracy, on the habit of the person—it is given to allay excitement, but it very often has the opposite effect; it may hare done so here, or it may not.

Q. Having taken it on the Saturday and Sunday night, and having been free from nervous excitement on the Sunday and Monday, what should you assume was its action on the nervous system; that it excited or composed? A. I cannot tell; it depends on the idiosyncracy of the person—if it were opium, it is only presumed to be opium, it would have soothed him—Mr. Bam ford has stated that he gave him opium, on Saturday and Sunday, in the pills, and it is stated that the man was tranquil on the Sunday and Monday—I do not mean to say that those pills did excite the nervous system—he had morphia given him on the two previous days, Saturday and Sunday, for the purpose of quieting his system—the tendency of it might be to tranquillise the nervous excitement, and to render it less easily excitable; but if there was approaching congestion of the brain, it would cause excitement instead of tranquillising him—I was not thinking of the pills, I thought it was a draught—in Mr. Bamford's deposition, he says there was congestion—in judging of such a case I took all the circumstances and symptoms, and took that among the rest—a man of manifest experience ought to bare known much better than younger men what he saw—he must have made a great many post mortem examinations—he thought this was apoplexy—I do not think it was apoplexy, as the word is commonly used—are you aware what apoplexy is?—the principal symptom of apoplexy is a congested state of the brain—I think this was not a case of apoplexy—I adhere to what his eyes saw—the other is a mere matter of opinion—I am bound to take Mr. Bamford's deposition.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. My friend asked you about this child in the cradle; I suppose you have seen a great many children in their cradles? A. Yes—and I have seen them with their bodies and their arms in certain positions that may give a pretty good idea whether they are asleep or not—from what I saw, and my experience in such matters, I now think it was a very fair opinion to form under those circumstances that the child was asleep—Dr. Mason Goode is a well-known author on the subject of convulsions, and their various forms and resemblance, and so on—I have, from my reading of that and other works, ascertained that there is a class of convulsions which are called epileptic, but which are not, strictly speaking, epilepsy, though they resemble it in some of its features—I know M. Esquirol, of the Salpetrière, in France—he is a well-known author on epilepsy—I know, from those and other works, that convulsions of an epileptic character, violent enough to cause death, are of frequent occurrence, without the patient entirely losing all consciousness—epilepsy, properly so called, is sudden in its attacks—the patient falls down at once, with a shriek—it very often occurs at night and in bed—it sometimes happens that its existence is known to a young man's or woman's family without being known to himself or herself—that comes within the range of my own experience—convulsions which the authors of whom I have spoken, and persons of medical science generally, do not class properly as epilepsy, but as convulsions of an epileptic character, are sometimes attended with premonitory symptoms; and the patient is sometimes thrown into tetaniform convulsions—it may sometimes happen that, pending the struggle of the convulsions of an epileptic character, actual epilepsy comes on, and the patient dies from spasm—it very often happens, in convulsions of an epileptic character, that a patient may have suffered in the night and be well the next morning, and as well the next day as if he had had no fit at all, more especially where adults are seized for the first time—when an adult is seized for the first time, it is consistent with my experience that several fits follow each other during a short period—I heard

the deposition of Mr. Bamford read—if it were true that Mr. Cook's mind appeared distressed and irritable the afternoon before he died, I should infer from that, considering the excitement and elation under which he had formerly laboured, that he was under a state of depression—I recollect what was proved to have been said of what happened in the middle of the Sunday night—I should infer from that, supposing it were true that he represented himself to be mad for ten minutes, and that it was occasioned by a quarrel in the street, that he had been seized with some sudden cramp or spasm—sup posing there were no such cramp, and that he meant to tell the truth, I should refer what he said, to nervous and mental excitement; if there were no cramp or spasms, there must have been some disturbance of the brain—as to the spots in the stomach, I stated that I differed in opinion from some gentlemen who had been called and who attached no importance to them—I said I did not believe that inflammation could be absent and these spots present—I have known in my own experience of serious consequence of a convulsive character, arising from, or reasonably imputed to, spots of that description—that case occurred about twenty years ago—it was published in 1820—the case I have seen, would be about eighteen months ago—it was a case of death, and I was examining the stomach—that was not the cause of death, it was a case of fever—I found these spots in the stomach—I did not know what they were, and consulted all the authors who had treated on the mucous structure of the stomach, and could find no account of it bat in one, which I have here—that is an essay by Dr. Spode Bowen—he is deceased—he practised in Edinburgh—this is the case he speaks of—"it was taken from a stomach in the possession of my friends Dr. Sharpey and Dr. A. Thompson, who thought the greater part of its surface presented nothing remarkable excepting being more than usually disposed in regular folds—about three and a half inches from the pylorus this disappears and the surface then displays a crowded assemblage of small eminences each about one-sixth of an inch in diameter, and marked in the centre by an orifice distinct to the naked eye—some glandular appearances are also visible around the cardia—the stomach was taken from a young girl who died suddenly while apparently in a state of perfect health."

DR. JOHN NATHAN BAINBRIDGE . I am a doctor of medicine, and medical officer to the St. Martin's workhouse—I have had very considerable experience of convulsive disorders—they admit of great variety of symptoms, very great indeed—the causes of them vary from what are called chronic convul sions to rigid oposthotonos or tetanic—hysteric convulsions are very fre quently accompanied with oposthotonos of the muscles of the back and of the limbs—the different cases vary as to the frequency of the recurrences, and as to the muscles affected, very much—periodicity, or recurring at the same intervals, is very common; I can mention a very remarkable instance of that—I mean recurring at the same month, the same hour, the same day, after twelve months, and it occurred in my own pupil—he was attacked on Christmas night, he was called up, and fell near the door—on Christmas night twelve months he had the same kind of attack exactly, and at the same hour—I have known this very common at shorter periods, such as twelve or twenty-four hours—these disorders run so imperceptibly one into the other, that it is almost impossible for the most experienced medical man to decide where one kind terminates and the other begins—hysteria is frequently accompanied by tetanic symptoms; I apply that answer to males as well as females—epileptic attacks are accompanied frequently with tetanic spasms, and hysteria also—I have not heard the witnesses in this case, except to day.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL . Q. Do hysterical couvul sions end in death when attended by tetanic symptoms; do they ever end in death? A. Very rarely indeed—I have known one case, that was within the last three months—it was a male in St. Martin's workhouse—he had been ill but a very short time, but he had had previous attacks on several occasions—he had been subject to attacks of the same complaint for years—he was ill only a few months on the last occasion before he died—he was taken with a kind of convulsion, as I was informed, but before I got there he was dead—his symptoms were described to me by those adjacent to him—I did not examine the body—I was told by those who attended him, that he was attacked with sudden convulsions and fell on the ground—they lifted him up on the bed, and in five minutes he was dead—there was nothing of opoethotonos that I am aware of—there wag spasmodic clenching of the hands, not to any great extent—I cannot tell whether there was any locking of the jaw, because he was dead, it did not appear to me to be so—he was not conscious when he died I believe—I can not undertake to say that that was not a death by apoplexy—the symptoms were of that character, but more of the character of epilepsy from the struggling—it would be very difficult for any man to define the difference in hysteria and epilepsy in some instances—in fact, the man had been subject to these fits for a long series of years, and at last be died in one of them—he was about thirty-five years of age—he was the brother of the celebrated aeronaut, Lieut Gale—in attacks of this nature there is in the fits a loss of consciousness sometimes, but not generally—I have seen several cases in which there has been an almost complete loss of consciousness, and in others they can almost understand everything you say to them—not perfectly, per haps, but you may rouse them—a man might be conscious, the power of consciousness may not be affected; it is in some instances, quite—I have seen some cases where consciousness is complete—I have known an instance in which a man was able to speak, after the paroxysm was over, but not when the paroxysm has set in—they will scream and will recollect that which I have said to them—I never knew them ask to have their position changed, in the actual paroxysm, but when it has subsided—epilepsy is attended with oposthor tonos sometimes, that is, when it is very bad, when the convulsions are very violent—when the convulsions are so violent, that oposthotonos is produced, I have known—them partially conscious—if they were asked subsequently they would recollect that which was said to them: after they have recovered—I have seen cases of traumatic tetanus—the patient retains his conscious ness almost always; always, as far as I have observed, to the last—in cases of epilepsy there is not consciousness to the same extent as in real tetanus, nor the power of expressing any desire which may be present on the mind of the sufferer during the extreme paroxysm—I have frequently known epilepsy end in death—I have only known one case of hysteria with tetanic complications end in death.

Q. But still you do not know a distinction between hysteria and epilepsy, you are making one in your own mind, are not you? A. It is a very dif ficult thing to define the exact line, I have known epilepsy end in death—loss of consciousness is more especially found in epilepsy, and by their sudden falling down, and being attacked in their sleep—that does not universally prevail in epilepsy—I do not know one case of death from epilepsy where consciousness was not destroyed before death—I have known many scores of cases of epilepsy: we have generally fourteen or fifteen cases—I cannot call to mind, at the present moment, in how many canes it has terminated fatally,

I dare say ten or eleven—consciousness has not remained to the termination of life in those cases.

MR. GROVE . Q. You were asked as to the consciousness in hysterical patients, hare you ascertained, after the paroxysm is over, whether they were conscious during the time? A. Yes, I have frequently asked them and have found that they were—falling asleep is a usual thing after epileptic attacks—they almost invariably fall asleep afterwards—it terminates in sleep fre quently, and so it is after taking opium.

EDWARD AUSTIN STEADY . I am a member of the Royal College of Sur geons and am in practice as a surgeon at Chatham—in June, 1854, I attended a person of the name of Taylor for trimnus and pleurosthotonoa—those were the symptoms that developed themselves—pleurosthotonos is a disease, and trismus also—in this case, instead of oposthotonos, it was pleurosthotonce that is, bending, not backwards, but on one side—when I first saw the patient she was bent on one side—convulsions came on in paroxysms—she had two attacks of pleurosthotonos, and lock jaw continued for a fortnight from the first attack—she had trisnuis all the time—for twelve months there were remissions of the pleurogthotonos—she appeared to get better to a certain extent at the end of a fortnight; she walked about, but one knee was contracted, the tendons were contracted—ahe was seized again about twelve months after, on the 2nd or 3rd of March, 1855—she continued with the seizure upon her about a week—it was detailed to me by her friend as ex citement, passion, I believe, which brought on the disease—I believe she had had some quarrel with her husband—I discovered no other cause.

Cross-examined by MR. JAMES . Q. When do you say this was first brought to your attention? A. In June, 1854, I believe, June or July—that was the first time I had seen her—it was about 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning—I did not ask how long before she had had this quarrel—I suppose I was called immediately—another medical man was called, and we both arrived together—she had had a blow on the left side, I cannot say whether it was violent—there was no description of the violence of the blow—they told me she bad had a blow given her on her side by her husband—I ob served the trismus, the setting in of the locking of the jaw at that time—she was under my immediate care for a fortnight—during the whole of the time the symptoms of rigidity about the lower jaw continued, and then she got better—I was called to her again in March, 1855—she was under my care then about a week—she had trismus again the whole week—I never heard whether there had been another quarrel and another blow—she hat never got thoroughly well—she has not got lock jaw—from that day to this she has tetanic twitchings of the limbs upon any cause of excitement—the disease is in action in her system at the present time—that is my opinion—I do not know how to define the disease—it is like many other nervous diseases—I saw her yesterday.

DR. GEORGE ROBINSON . I am a licentiate of the Royal College of Physi cians, Fellow of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society of London, and physician to the Newcastle-on-Tyne Fever Hospital and Dispensary—I have devoted considerable attention to the subject of pathology, and have pub lished various essays upon it—I have practised as a physician in Newcastle for ten years—I have heard the whole of the evidence in this case—from the symptoms I have heard described, Mr. Cook died of tetanic convulsions; by which I mean, not the convulsions of tetanus the disease, but convulsions similar to those witnessed in tetanus as a disease, convulsions resembling it—the convulsions of epilepsy do sometimes assume a tetanic character—I

know of no department of pathology more obscure than that of convulsive dis eases—I have been present at post mortem examinations of persons who died from convulsive diseases—I have sometimes seen no morbid appear ances whatever, and in other cases the morbid appearances which were visible were common to a variety of diseases—these latter do not appear to me sufficient to account for the death which took place—convulsive dis eases undoubtedly depend very much on the state of the nerves—they arise very much from the state of the nerves, and are all connected with the nervous action—the brain has great influence in producing convulsive dis eases, but the spinal cord has a greater influence—the presence of gritty grannies in the neighbourhood of the spinal cord would be likely to produce convulsive diseases—there is such a disease as spinal epilepsy; that is accom panied by strong convulsions, which might resemble in a great degree those described in the present case—periodicity would belong to convulsions arising from spinal epilepsy—I should say, from the evidence I have heard, that Mr. Cook's mode of life would predispose him to epilepsy—I have wit nessed some experiments on the poison of strychnia, and performed a few; I was going to add that I have prescribed it medicinally in cases of paralysis—I was present at an analysis performed by Mr. Herepath on Tuesday last.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL . Q. You say the convulsions of epilepsy sometimes assume a tetanic character; how many cases have you seen of epilepsy in which that has been the case? A. In all cases of epilepsy there are violent convulsions—I cannot tell how many I have seen assume the tetanic character; perhaps twenty—I will say that I have seen twenty—it has not gone as far as oposthotonos; not the extreme oposthotonos, not the oposthotonos of tetanus—the whole body has been stretched out, and the head thrown back, but not the marked symptoms of oposthotonos a slight degree of it—I attended to the description given by Mr. Jones as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook; that the whole body was so stiffened that he could not raise it, and so bowed that it would have lain upon it's heels and the back of it's head if it had been put horizontally—I have never seen epilepsy like that, not to the same degree—I can only repeat what I said before; that I have seen a slight case—I have seen the body so stiff that if you attempted to lift the body at the back of the neck you would be obliged to lift the whole body—you could lift the body with sufficient force—I have never seen it so that the body would have rested on the head and heels—you may have convulsions of the same character occurring from other causes, tetanic convulsions sometimes occur from the operation of various poisons.

Q. I am putting to you natural disease, or natural tetanus; I am not dealing with poisons; keep to natural diseases: did you ever know symp toms of oposthotonos, to that extent, arise from anything but tetanus? A. Not within my own experience; I have read of epilepsy being accom panied with tetanic convulsions; the degree of oposthotonos was not men tioned—as far as my experience goes, epilepsy, when it assumes that marked character, has always been accompanied by more or less unconsciousness—I have read in a publication of Dr. Marshall Hall's, that sometimes uncon sciousness is not present; he does not mention whether death' took place or not.

Q. Does that make all the difference? A. Undoubtedly; the disease would be more severe—I cannot give you the narrative of a single case that I know of, either of my own experience or on record in medical works of authority, where there has been death from epilepsy, and consciousness has

continued till death; but if death had occurred in any of those cases described by Dr. Marshall Hall, that would have supplied a case—Dr, Marshall Hall is, I believe, living—I do not know whether he is in thia city.

Q. You said, in answer to my friend, that gritty granules would be likely to produce convulsive diseases; what extent of development, in your judg ment, must they attain to produce any action on the spinal marrow? A. I should say there is no relation between the size of the granules and the irri tation produced—I should not expect, when they began to get to that size, that they would have any effect on the nervous syatem, that they would begin to show their effect more or less gradually—in epilepsy I have myself observed small granules in the membranes of the brain; and although the csase, if I may term it such, is constant, yet their operation is not constant—the cause of the irritation would be there, and any excitement would bring on the attack—an attack might very likely come on at once as a fit of epilepsy—there would be pain during the continuance of the violent spasms if the patient had convulsions; not necessarily pain from the spasms—I am not speaking now of the disease which Mr. Partridge called arachnitis—these granules would not produce that disease—I think it would be more likely to produce epilepsy by irritating the spinal cord—granules of that descrip tion do not often exist in healthy subject, I have never met with any; the inner surface of the dura mater of the spinal cord in healthy subjects in beautifully smooth and polished—I have examined many bodies after death—in dissecting epileptic subjects in the large hospitals in Paris these small granules have been found very frequently—if these granules exercise any effect upon the system, it would, in my opinion, be to produce epilepsy—inmy experience I have never known epilepsy unaccompanied by un consciousness; nor have I ever known epilepsy produce the marked symptoms of tetanic character which characterise this case in my own experience.

Q. Do you feel yourself warranted in inferring that these granules caused epilepsy in this case? A. I think they might have done so; and if I put aside the hypothesis of poisoning by strychnia, I would undertake to state my opinion that they did—several of the symptoms described by Mr. Jones, the sudden paroxysm, the stiffening of the body, the convulsions of all the muscles, both of the trunk and the limbs, and the complete oposthotonos which has been described, are also common to other diseases, but are cer tainly consistent with death by strychnia—I think there would be some twitches before oposthotonos came on—the stiffness of the neck would very likely amount to a premonitory symptom of tetanic convulsions about to come on—I have seen it in tetanus, it would be the first symp tom, I think—if I had no other cause to which I could ascribe the death, I should ascribe it to epilepsy; but. in this case I admit that two of the symptoms, namely, the preservation of consciousness and the complete oposthotonos, are inconsistent with my experience of epilepsy.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. They are not inconsistent with your reading? A. They are not—I think they are inconsistent with convulsions of the epi leptic form ending in death, though not actually amounting to epilepsy—epilepsy itself is rather an objectionable term, and has been objected to by some eminent writers—supposing it to have been actual epilepsy, I should say that the epilepsy commenced when Mr. Cook sat up in bed and cried out—I should say that that was the sense of suffocation, which would be a premonitory symptom of it—after the final shriek, and throwing himself

back in the bed, there is no symptom stated in my hearing from which I could infer consciousness after that, except that he swallowed some pilla—I should not consider that a body which immediately, or within ten minutes after death, when it is quite warm, lay perfectly straight, the hands extended, resting on it's heels, and it's back, and it's head, was in a state of oposhotonos; not if it rested on it's back—in my judgment, the body might assume, without actual rigidity, the bowlike shape and appearance, as if it could rest on it's head and heels, and yet, when turned over, lie flat in the bed.

DR. BENJAMIN WALL RICHARDSON . I am a physician practising in London, a licentiate of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow; and a licentiate of the College of Physicians here. I have never seen a cases of idiopathic or traumatic tetanus properly so called, but I have seen a con siderable number of deaths by convulsions, and I have known those cases, when they have ended in death, sometimes assume a tetanifonn appearance, without being, strictly speaking, tetanus—I have seen the muscles fixed; especially the muscles of the upper part of the body, the arms stretched out, the hands closely and firmly clenched, continuously so, until death—I have observed a sense of suffocation in the patient—I should like to correct the last answer, and say that I have seen the hands stiffened until the patient died, in oases where death has taken place in my presence—I have known contortion of both legs and feet in some forms—if the patient is con scious, in the cases I refer to, he sits up, or wishes to sit up—I have known persons die from a disease called angina pectoris , and the symptoms of that disease, when it is fatal, resemble closely the final paroxysm in which Mr. Cook died— angina pectoris is classed amongst the convulsive or spasmodic diseases—it has no distinctive feature on post mortem examination; there are features under some circumstances—there may be disease of the heart detectable, but under other circumstances none at all—it is not generally detectable, by no means.

Q. Will you state what symptoms of that disease, when it has proved fatal, you particularly refer to as resembling those that have been stated in the case of Mr. Cook? A. Perhaps I could not do better than describe a case which I myself saw, a girl, ten years of age, was under my care in Nov 1850—I supposed she had suffered from scarlet fever, for she had a slight feverish attack, and scarlet fever was in the neighbourhood—she recovered no far that my visits ceased on the 26th Nov.—I left her amused and merry in the morning—at half-past ten in the evening a messenger came, and I was called hastily to see her, and found her dying—she was supported upright, at her own request, by her sister—the face was pale, the muscles of the face rigid, the arms rigid, the fingers clenched, the respiratory muscles completely fixed and rigid, and with all combined an intense agony and restlessness such as I have never witnessed—there was perfect consciousness; the child knew me, and expressed herself as in intense agony, and eagerly took from my hands some brandy and water in a spoon—I left at that time to go to my house, twenty or thirty houses off, to got some chloroform for the purpose of producing anistheria by chloroform vapour—on returning, the head was drawn back, I could detect no respiration, and the heart had stopped; the eyes remained fixed open, and the body just resembling a statue: she was dead—I did not observe whether the rigor mortis came on at it's usual time or later, but on the following day it was on when I made the post mortem examination—unfortunately I left the body in the amis of the sister, and it was laid out afterwards, so that I cannot say what change took place—on

the post mortem examination I found the brain slightly congested—a portion of the upper part of the spinal cord deemed normal and healthy—(I have not made a written report)—the lungs were collapsed—the heart was in such a state of firm spasmodic contraction, and so empty, that I remarked that the blood in it might have been rinsed out, it was so perfectly clean and free from blood—I found no disease which could account for death—there were no appearances of functional or structural disturbance, and no heart disease, except a slight effosion of serum in one pleural cavity; I forget on which side; I believe the right side—I examined the upper part only of the spinal cord, and it was in a normal state—the history of the friends was, that the child was unusually well at rapper, and very merry; that she leaped into bed mervily, and, on lying down, suddenly jumped up, and said, "I am going to die," and begged her sister to rub her—there had been nothing of the same kind in the family—the father was then dead—the mother was a woman of fifty years of age at that time.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Do I understand you to say that in your opinion that it was a case of angina pectoris? A. I do—it accords with all the descriptions of angina pectoris by the best authors—E—was the first who described it—it has since then been described by Wat son, Latham, Bolleau in France, Sir Everard Holme, and Ridge—what angina pectoris arises from, is quite another question—it was the opinion of the dis tinguished Jenner that it arises from the small coronary vessels of the heart—frequently that disease does exist, but not always—it did not in my case, for I looked specially— angina peatoris has been laid down as a ease also of valvular disease of the heart; might I explain that the coronary arteries supply the heart itself with nourishment—it is also a disease of the valves of the heart—there have been many cases" met with where there has been no discovered cause—I know it is angina pectoris , as I do ether diseases: we assume—diseases from certain classes of symptoms, and by those names we call those diseases—it is called angina pectorie because there is oppression of the chest—it is marked by that; it is anguish of the cheat—Dr. Watson or Dr. Latham describes that the pain is so excruciating that they feel as if the chest was in a vice—those symptoms which I class under angina pectoris are not exactly those symptoms that would be produced by taking strychnia—the difference is this, in angina pectoris the patient requests to be rubbed—friction gives relief; the hands generally are asked to be rubbed—I have not seen a case of strychnia poison, but from my reading I do not know that it is the fact; it may be.

Q. Did you hear the Leeds case, and of the lady asking her husband to rub her? A. Assuming that that wan a case of strychnia, I must say the two forms of death are so similar, that I feel there would be a very great difficulty in distinguishing angina from the effects of strychnia—I wish to add, with this difference, that angina is paroxysmal, it comes and goes, and strychnia would not be so likely to assume that type—you would not expect that to be so for many months—in this ease it ended in the first paroxysm—as regards symptoms, I know no difference.

Q. How then are you justified in cases where you discover no abnormal conditions of the heart, or it's arteries, in setting down the death to angina Pretoris? A. Precisely as if I was called to a case of epilepsy, and saw the symptoms of epilepsy, I should accept them as such.

Q. Supposing that the symptoms were referable to two causes, in the absence of all evidence, what is there to warrant you in setting it down to one in preference to the other? A. I candidly admit that in that case, if I

had known as much of the analogy which exists between the two classes of symptoms as I do now, I should hare gone on to conduct an analysis—I have had only two cases of this description in my own experience, and I have heard of another one; that was a case of organic disease of the heart—I cannot speak exactly as to the proportion the cases of angina pectoris bear to cases in which there is no abnormal appearance after death; but, I believe, in six, seven, or eight carefully recorded cases, there has been no pathological lesion found— angina pectoris is attended with most painful symptoms before it terminates in death; it is very rare—I am not pre pared with data as to how many cases are reported—the paroxysms ter minating in death may run on for not more than eight minutes—it does not manifest itself by painful symptoms before; it makes a sudden appearance; and kills at the first attack, but not always; not generally—I think the person will generally have more than one paroxysm in anyita as a general rule—in the case of the girl that I mentioned the head was somew hat bent back.

Q. Is that what would be called, in the medical sense of the term, oposthotonos, the beading back of the body, so that it would rest on its head and heels? A. Granting that a body is sitting upright when I see it, I cannot conceive how the body would rest on its head and heels—then was then rigidity, not amounting to oposthotonos, but still very marked—the body had been laid out—the neck was so stiffly bent back, that if the body had been laid down, and the lower limbs, which did not so especially come under my attention, had been at stiff in proportion as the neck, I have no doubt that it would be properly classed as opo sthotonos from tetanus—I did not look at the legs to speak with accuracy about them—the case was so firmly fixed in my mind that I can never forget it—during the time I was with the poor child she was so intensely restless, and desirous to be changed, that her sister moved her again and again, her only cry was to be moved, as if nothing else would relieve her; so that I did not pay attention to the condition of the lower extremities—I did not send a note of the case to any publication—I believe I reported it to the Medical Society of London—I have not inquired for it for the purposes of this inquiry—I have seen the hands firmly clenched after death so that they were difficult to open, not in epilepsy only, but in many forma; in cases where there has been violent convulsions—I saw them once firmly clenched after death had occurred from haemorrhage, and where the convulsions were violent—I can only say in a general sense that I have seen the hands clenched over and over again, and have paid no atten tion to it; but my belief is from seeing persons die, and I have watched with great interest, for the purpose of ascertaining how death really took place, in various classes of cases, for six years past, that the clenching of the hands is, in many respects, a mere matter of accident; it depends upon what the patient is doing at the moment of death; if he is grasping the bed-clothes, for instance, the hands will remain clenched, and he might have a portion of the bed-clothes in his hands—that very often happens in cases of sinking from inflammatory disease—I cannot state positively that I have seen the hands firmly clenched so as to be difficult to open after death, in cases exclusive of tetanus.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Have you known cases personally or from your reading that when patients recover from angina pectoris , within a short time afterwards they sometimes have another attack? A. They do, sometimes in so whort an interval as twenty-four hours—during the interval between the

two attacks the condition of the patient is that of perfect health to all appearance—I have stated that, had I known as much of strychnia as I do now, I should, in the cane of angina pectoris to which I have referred, have recommended a chemical analysis—looking at this case, with the interval occurring between the two fits, I should, speaking scientifically, certainly say that the person suffering under them was more likely to be labouring under angina pectoris than under strychnia—I had not the slightest reason to suspect poison of any kind in that case, either before or now—I assisted in the post mortem examination, which was made by Dr. George Milk, of Monmouth, who was then living at my house.

Dr. WRIGHTSON , re-examined by MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. ln your opinion, when the strychnis poison is absorbed into the system, does it become dif fused by the circulation of the blood through the system, or does it collect in various parts of the body, and is it absent in other parts? A. I should think it is diffused throughout the entire system equally, if it be wholly absorbed.

COURT . Q. That effect would be produced by the circulation? A. Cer tainly—I was going to observe, the diffusion would depend on the rapidity with which death takes place after the absorption.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Would the absorption be more complete if a longer time were given for the process between the administration and the death? A. Certainly, it would be so—supposing a minimum dose given sufficient to destroy life, if a long interval elapses between the taking of the poison and the death, the more complete the absorption and the less the chance of finding it in the stomach; cœteris paribus , I should say, that would be so.

COURT . Q. In such a case would you look for it elsewhere? A. Yes.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Would you have a very good chance of finding it in the kidneys and spleen? A. I should say so, decidedly; and in the blood.

CATHERINE WATSON . I live at Garnkirk, in Scotland. I was attacked with a fit in October of last year—I had no wound or injury on my body before I was attacked—I had not taken any poison.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. When did you first feel ill? A. It was a little before 11 o'clock at night—I had not been ill in the day—I found myself heavy—I was not in pain anywhere—I found myself low in spirits, but was not in pain—I Ald not find myself stiff at all, not before 11 o'clock—I took a pain in the stomach first, a few minutes before 11 o'clock—cramps—two cramps in my arms—then I was very ill—I was quite insensible—I had never had cramps like this before, nor since—I have not felt any pain ever since.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Do you remember being bled? A. I was; that is the only thing I do remember.

( William Joteph Saunders was called on kit subpoena, but did not answer.) Adjourned.

Saturday, May 24 th

OLIVER PEMBERTON . I am lecturer on anatomy at Queen's College, Birmingham, and surgeon to the General Hospital at Birmingham. I was present at the examination of the body of the late Mr. Cook, after it had been exhumed in the month of Jan. or Feb.—I observed the condition of the spinal cord—in my judgment, it certainly was not in a condition to enable me to state with confidence in what state it had been immediately

after the death of the deceased—the upper part, where the brain had been separated, was green in colour, from the effects of decomposition; the remaining portion, though fairly preserved for a body buried two months, was so soft as not to enable me to form any opinion as to its state imme diately after death.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. You did not see the body, I think, till it had been opened twenty-four hours? A. I do not know how many hours, but it was the day after the bony canal had been opened—the opening of that bony canal, to a certain extent, would expose the interior substance of the cord to the atmosphere; but it was still covered with a very hard, dense membrane; it was still protected—that membrane had not been opened—I am not sure, but it is my impression decidedly, that the outer covering, what is termed the dura mater, was not opened till I was present—attended on the prisoner's behalf—Mr. Bolton, of Birmingham, the Professor at Queen's College, was also present on behalf of the prisoner.

HENRY MATTHEWS . I am inspector of police at the Euston-square rail way station—I was stationed there on Monday, 19th November last—the last train that stops at Bugeley is the 2 o'clock in the afternoon—there was such a train at that time—nothing after that—the express leaves at 5o'clock and gets to Stafford at 8.42—it got to Stafford that night at 8.45—the time it was due was at 8.42—the distance from Stafford to Bugeley by railway is nine miles—I do not know how much it is by the road—the quickest mode of getting to Rugeley is by the express train, and by the road, after the 2 o'clock train leaves.

JOSEPH FOSTER . I am a farmer and grazier at Sibbertoft, Northampton shire—I kept the George hotel, near Welford, in Northamptonshire, up to Lady-day last—I knew the late John Parsons Cook for many years—I have met him at various places, in the hunting-field, scores of times, and at dinner at different places—I think he was generally of a weak constitution—I formed that judgment, because I had been along with him several times when he has had bilious attack and sick headache—those are the only circumstances from which I formed that judgment.

Cross-examined by MR. JAMES . Q. How long had you known him? A. I think from eight to ten years—he hunted regularly in Northamptonshire, for these last two years—he sometimes kept two and sometimes three hunters—I dare say he has hunted three times a week—I have seen him three days a week, pretty regularly, when he has been well—I know Mr. Pell, an attorney at Northampton—there was a cricket club at Welford, and there is now—Mr. Cook was a member—I have seen him there, but not for these last three or four years—the club was held at the Talbot, at the cricket ground—I did not see him playing cricket there for three or four years—I saw him last at Lutterworth some time about the middle of October, I can not speak to the day—I met him in the middle of the street—I think the hunting had not commenced then—I think it was a year and a half ago that he last had a sick headache—I saw him at my own house—he could not hunt that day—his horses did not stand at my stables—he often called—he could not go out hunting that day—he was not well enough—he was not then liv ing with Mr. Jones, of Lutterworth—he was dressed in his hunting dress when he called—I don't know whether he was out the next day—I cannot speak to the time when I saw him again, perhaps about a week or so, I cannot speak to the time—he remained at my house about a couple or three hours—he had not dined at my house the day before—I believe he stayed a

couple or three hours, and went home—I dare say when I tow him next, it was hunting, I cannot recollect—I will not swear that I did not see him within a week, in the hunting field.

MR. GRAY . Q. Upon what other circumstances besides that one instance of sick headache did you form your opinion? A. I never saw him sick but once, seven years ago, that was at Market Harborough, cricket playing—that was seven years ago, at a cricket match after dinner.

GEORGE MYATT . I am a saddler, and reside at Rugeley—I was at Shrewsbury races on the Tuesday that Polestar won—I was at the Raven hotel on the second day—it was the Wednesday—I saw Mr. Cook and Mr. Palmer at the Raven on that evening, I should say about 12 o'clock at night—I was waiting in the room when they came—I considered Mr. Cook the worse for liquor—they proposed haying a glass of brandy and water before they went to bed—we had each of us a glass—while we were drinking it, Mr. Cook made some remark, and said he fancied it was not good—he drank his part of it up, the best part of it—it was Mr. Cook that made the remark that he thought something was in it—he gave it to some one by to taste it, and he said he could not taste anything that was the matter with it—Mr. Cook proposed to have some more, and Mr. Palmer said he would not have any more unless Mr. Oook drank his up—there came no move brandy in, and they proposed going to bed—I went to bed along with Mr. Palmer—I mean to say that I slept in the same room as Mr. Palmer—the brandy was brought in in a decanter—mine was put out—I cannot say who put it out—it was poured out to me in my presence—I did not leave the room at all during the time.

COURT . Q. You did not leave the room from the time that Mr. Cook and Mr. Palmer came, till you all went to bed? A. Exactly.

MR. GROVE . Q. Was anything put in the brandy and water daring the time you were there? A. I never saw anything—it could not have been put in without my seeing it—Mr. Cook left, and I and Mr. Palmer went into the same room—we slept in the same bed-room—we went out, and left Mr. Cook in the sitting-room—Mr. Cook slept in a separate room—nothing further occurred during the night—when we went to bed I locked the door, and Mr. Palmer was never out during the night—when we got up in the morning, he asked me to go and call Mr. Cook—I did so—I went to Mr. Cook's bed room door, and I rapped at the door, and he told me to come in—I went in, and he told me how ill he had been during the night—he said he had been obliged to send for a doctor—he asked me what was put in the brandy and water, and I told him I did not know that anything was put in—he asked me to send the doctor to him, meaning Mr. Palmer—I did so—I saw him next when he came in to his breakfast—Mr. Palmer was in the sitting room—I believe we breakfasted first, that is, Mr. Palmer and me, before Mr. Cook came in—he came directly after we had had our breakfast—he had breakfast in the same room—we afterwards left for Rugeley that night, Mr. Cook, Mr. Palmer, and myself—we dined together first at the Raven—we left for Rugeley about six o'clock, as near as I recollect—we travelled by express train from Shrewsbury to Rugeley, and the doctor paid for the three tickets—on the way Mr. Palmer was sick, and Mr. Cook and him said they could not account how it were —he vomited through the window, not in the rail way carriage, it was going from Stafford to Rugeley, in the fly—we arrived in Stafford at the Junction—we stopped at the Junction-inn at Stafford, and in got into a fly, there being no train, and on the road from Stafford to Rugeley Mr. Palmer was sick—they said they could not account for it, unless it was

cooked in some brass utensil, or the water; there had been a great many people ill during the Shrewsbury races—that was the remark they made—I know that a good many people had been ill at the Shrewsbury races—I had heard them speak about it before—I heard those who had been ill speak about it, and they could not account for it—the distance from the station at Stafford to the inn at Rugeley by the turnpike road, is nine miles.

Cross-examined by MR. JAMES . Q. How long have you known the prisoner? A. All his life—he deals with me for his saddlery at his training stables—I have not been in the habit of going to races with him a good deal—occasionally I have—I work for racing people, and I now and then go—I was not at Doncaster with him—I have never been at Doncaster races with him in my life—I never slept in the same room with him at Doncaster—I had been at Doncaster, once, with a gentleman of the name of Robinson—I was at Wolverhampton races with Palmer, the 11th, 12th, or 13th of Aug. last year—I went with him—I did not sleep with him—I never slept with him at all at Wolverhampton—I swear that—I did not live in the same hotel with him—I have a brother-in-law at Wolverhampton, and I stopped there—I believe I was a couple of days at Wolverhampton races—I believe I never dined with him there—I will swear that I did not at Wolverhampton, nor breakfasted with him—I was at Lichfield races in that year with him—in Sept, I think; I cannot call it to my mind when they were—I was there—I did not go with him—they are held near to Rugeley, within, I suppose, ten miles—I came home to sleep—we did not sleep at Lichfield; at least I did not go with Mr. Palmer at all, and I did not come home with him—I think that was about all the races I was at last year—I believe I have never slept in a double-bedded room with Mr. Palmer at any other races besides Shrewsbury—I believe I can swear it—I will swear it—I had never been to any other races and lived in the same hotel with him but at Shrewsbury—that I swear—I was never at Worcester in my life—I have been to have refreshment at Wolverhampton, but I never slept at Wolverhampton; nowhere besides Shrewsbury, I believe—I paid my own expenses to Shrewsbury—he paid them back up to Stafford, and Mr. Cook paid the fly up to Eugeley—Palmer paid my expenses of living at Shrewsbury, at the hotel—if he did so at other races, they were generally deducted out of the bill for working for him—I will swear that he has never paid my expenses of living at any other races—he never paid any other but the Shrewsbury races; he paid what the expenses there were—we dined together, and it was put in the bill—I offered to pay mine, and he said he would pay it—he has not done that at other races for my dining—he never paid nowhere besides Shrewsbury—that I swear—I dare say I was at races with him the year before—I cannot recollect—I was at races with him in the year 1854—perhaps about two or three—I cannot call it to my mind how many.

Q. Have you been with Palmer since he has been in Stafford gaol? A. I was at Stafford, in the gaol there—I saw him with Mr. Smith—I was there once—I was with him about a couple of hours—I did not take any account of when that was—I should think a month ago, or five weeks—I cannot tell to a week when it was—I cannot exactly call to my mind whether it was since the true bills were found against him at the Stafford Assizes—I never took no notice—I cannot say whether it was before or after the Stafford Assizes—I went because Mr. Smith said he was going, and I thought I would like to see him.

Q. Have you been in the habit, with Palmer, of betting upon his horse?

A. I bare now and then stood half a sovereign or a sovereign—that was the most I have done—I merely stood half a sovereign or a sovereign—that is the most I ever did—I know what is meant by putting on a horse—I did not bet at Shrewsbury—not upon any of Mr. Palmer's horses at all, and no one else's—I did not back Mr. Cook's mare Polestar—when I have betted a sovereign or half a sovereign it has been at races where Palmer's horses have run, or any other horses—I was not tied to his alone—I had nothing to do with betting with Mr. Palmer—I have stood a sovereign with him—I first saw Mr. Cook by himself at the Rayen on the Wednesday evening—it was near twelve o'clock when I saw him in Palmer's company—I had not been dining with Palmer—I had dined at home, at Rugeley—I got to Shrewsbury on Wednesday night, I should say about eight; it might have been between eight and nine—I went to the Raven—I knew the room that Palmer generally had, being there before—I went up to see if Palmer was in—I went directly from the railway station, between eight and nine—I went straight up—the first as I saw against the room door was Cook, and he said, "Halloa! what brings you here?"—he was by the door outside, buttoning his coat—I told him I was come to see how he was getting on—Palmer was gone out; then I went into the town awhile—I got back to the room in the Raven where Palmer was—I should suppose I might be an hour out—I went into Palmer's sitting room—he was not there—I waited in the sitting room till he came—there was a person of the name of Shelley there, a betting man—I should say I was waiting there a couple of hours or more before Palmer came; I cannot say to half an hour—I should say it was about twelve o'clock, as near as possible, when Palmer came in; I cannot say to half an hour: I had no watch, and saw no dock—he came with Mr. Cook—Mr. Cook was the worse for liquor—I saw that, when he came in—he was not very drunk, rather—so much the worse for liquor that I could easily see it—the brandy and water was produced directly—it was brought in a decanter—the water might be on the table, I cannot say how it came in—there were tumblers on the table, and we drank it out of the tumblers—I should say the tumblers and the Brandy were all brought up together; I do not say that the water was the water might be there; it generally is the case—I do not remember Mrs. Brooks coming—I do not recollect Palmer being called out of the room to speak to her—I remember a gentleman coming in, but I have not the pleasure of knowing him—I know him by calling—he came by my shop during the inquest—I know there was a gentleman of the name of Fisher—I remember the person whom I now know to be Mr. Fisher, coming in—before Mr. Fisher had come in, Palmer did not take out a glass of brandy and water, and leave the room—that I will swear—or at any time that evening before they went to bed—he never left the room from the time he joined me in the room with Cook, until we went to bed—I swear that posi tively—I was sitting close to him—when Mr. Fisher came in, Palmer did not ask Mr. Cook-to have some more brandy and water; Mr. Cook asked Palmer—Palmer said he would not have any more unless he drank his brandy and water—it was evident to any one that Mr. Cook was the worse for liquor; I saw it very plain—Palmer sat close to me, and Cook sat next him, and if it was Fisher he was at the far side—Palmer said, "I shall not have any more till you drink yours"—Mr. Cook then said, "I will drink mine," and he drank it at a draught—directly after he had drunk it he made a remark that he thought it was not good—he did say there was something in it—I do not know that he said, "It burns my throat dreadfully"—he

said the brandy and water was not good—I will swear he did not say it burnt his throat—I will swear he did not say, "It burns my throat dread fully," nothing to that effect—nothing of that kind—he gave it to some one to taste—he did not make any other observation—he gave it to some one to taste, I believe to Mr. Fisher—I will not swear it was Mr. Fisher; he gave it to some one—I cannot say which it was who did that, Palmer or Cook—it was given to another person in the room, and I believe it was Mr. Fisher—I do not know a Mr. Read; I have heard the name—no person whom I now know to be Mr. Bead, came in; I do not know such a person—I believe there were but four persons in the room when Mr. Cook drank the brandy and water, and said there was something in it—I do not know that Mr. Bead came in immediately after that—I do not know him—I can not say whether any other person came in—Cook emptied the glass as near as possible; there was a little left in—I cannot swear whether Palmer touched that glass afterwards or not—I believe he did taste it—as soon as Cook had drunk it, he gave it to some one else; I believe Mr. Fisher—I believe Palmer said that he could not taste that anything was the matter with the brandy and water—I believe he gave it to Mr. Fisher, and he could not—I do not know whether Mr. Fisher said, "It was no use giving me the glass, it is empty"—I do not recollect that he did—he said he could not taste anything the matter with it—I cannot say whether he said, "It is no use giving me the glass, it is empty"—I will not swear whether he did or not—I should say we were in the room, perhaps, twenty minutes, it might have been half an hour, after Mr. Cook had drunk the brandy and water—I cannot say exactly—he did not leave the room before I left to go to bed—that I will swear—I went straight from the room up to bed with Palmer, we went both together—we both went to the same room—we left Cook in the room—I never heard at all that night that Mr. Cook had been ill—I never knew that he was ill till he told me in the morning—I took one glass of brandy and water that night—we had a glass a piece—we had cold water—on the following day, Thursday, I dined with Palmer, and Mr. Cook served me with what I had—during the inquest that was held at Rugeley I was at home the two days, and the last day of the inquest I wept to Birmingham on business—during the first two days I was at home at Rugeley—I did not go to it.

MR. GROVE . Q. You have been subpoanaed by the Crown, I believe, in this case? A. Never—for the defence—the other party heard what I had to say about it, and examined me, but did not subpoœna me—I was examined, with Mr. Crisp—I do not know who the gentlemen were that examined me—the deputy governor of the gaol was not present during the whole of my interview with Palmer, at Stafford gaol—he went out once—there was another person there, who, I do not know—there was an officer along with us—we talked about the trial of Palmer—we did name it, but it was about his brother; nothing at all about this case; not a word—an officer was present during the whole time.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Did not you tell Mr. Gardiner, the at torney for the prosecution, when asked about the brandy and water at Shrewsbury, that you could recollect nothing about it? A. I never spoke to him about the brandy and water at all—he did not examine me—I went into the room where the sale was, at Hednesford—I did not tell that gentleman at Hednesford that I could recollect nothing about the brandy and water at Shrewsbury—I had some conversation about it with Mr. Stevens—that gentleman was present—I did not say, in his presence, that I could

recollect nothing about the brandy and water at Shrewsbury—I did not tell Mr. Crisp and Mr. Sweeting, before the inquest, that I knew nothing about it—I told them what I knew about it—Mr. Crisp was one; the other gentlemen I did not know—I swear I did not tell them that I could recollect nothing about it—I told them what happened exactly as I tell you now.

JOHN SARGENT . I am not in any business or profession—I am in the habit of attending races, almost every public race in the season—I knew the late Mr. Cook intimately, and also the prisoner Palmer—I received a letter from Mr. Cook during the Shrewsbury races—I was subpoenaed on the part of the Crown to come here to give evidence—I have not had any notice to produce that letter—I have not got it—I made inquiries for it when I heard that, my evidence might be required—I searched for it, but I had sent it to Saunders, the trainer—I made application to Saunders for it, by letter—I received a letter in answer to that—I have the letter Saunders sent me in reply to my application for that letter—this is it ( producing it )—I have seen Saunders since—I have done everything in my power to find that letter—I was applied to, by Mr. Stevens, to get it—I have not a copy of that letter, but I know the contents of the letter word by word.

( The COURT . was of opinion that the contents of the letter could not be received )—I do not know of my own knowledge, or from anything that passed between Palmer and Cook in my presence, what they won or lost at Shrewsbury—I was not at Shrewsbury—I only know what Cook told me in the letter that he wrote—shortly before Mr. Cook's death I had an opportunity of noticing the state of his throat—I was with him at Liverpool on the week previous to the Shrewsbury meeting—we slept in adjoining rooms to each other, and in the morning he called my attention to the state of his throat and mouth; and the back part of his tongue was in a complete state of ulcer—he asked me to look at it—I was in the room, and the back of his throat was very much inflamed; the uvula was swelled, and I said I was surprised that he could eat and drink in the state his mouth was in—he said he had been in that state for weeks and months, and now he did not take notice of it—he said, "I do not take notice of it, I have had it for weeks and months"—that was all that passed on that occasion on the sore throat—I had frequent opportunities of observing the inconvenience which he actually suffered in taking anything that was at all hot—I had met him before when his throat was in this state, and he had shown it to me previously to that; almost at every meeting that we attended.

Q. Did he at any time on any of those occasions tell you of anything that bad put him to great pain in the attempt to eat or swallow it? A. The only occasion when I saw it was by his taking a gingerbread but on the platform at Liverpool after the race—he took a ginger-nut with cayenne in it—I saw him do it—he took it by mistake—he told me afterwards that it very nearly killed him—he did not say more particularly than that what effect it produced upon him—Mr. Cook was very poor at Liverpool—that was the week before the Shrewsbury races—he owed me 25 l ., and he gave me 10 l . on account, and he said he had not sufficient to pay his expenses at Liverpool, but that I should have the balance of 15 l . at the Shrewsbury meeting—Mr. Cook and Palmer were in the habit of putting on for each other; that is, betting for each other on particular horses—they did that jointly, they did that at the Liverpool meeting—I executed a commission for Mr. Palmer; I put the money on, and Mr. Palmer told me that Mr. Cook stood a portion of that money with him at Liverpool—I think I have his letter.

Q. Had you known at any time, shortly before Mr. Cook's death, of his having used a lotion called black wash? A. I have heard him apply to Mr. Palmer to supply him with a wash of that description—I do not know whether that is a mercurial lotion.

Cross-examined by MR. JAMES . Q. When was that? A. When he applied for it, it was at the Warwick meeting.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. Had you ever seen, recently before Mr. Cook's death, his throat dressed by anybody? A. I never did, to my knowledge.

MR. JAMES . Q. That black wash, as I understand, was not to be drunk? A. No, I should think not—it was a lotion—that was at the Warwick meeting—I cannot inform you the date—there are two Warwick meetings—I cannot state positively the date—it was at the time that his mare Pole star ran—the spring of 1855 I should say; the latter end; the meeting after the Newmarket meeting—Mr. Cook was at Newmarket—he lived in the same house with me—the Newmarket meeting was before the Warwick meeting—he was at the autumnal races, and nearly all the races of last year—he was at the Caesarewitch and the Cambridgeshire, and nearly all the race meetings—the Liverpool meeting, when he showed me his throat, was a week before the Shrewsbury—he ate and drank well then—his appetite was pretty good—that was what surprised me at Liverpool, and at the other meetings as well—this cayenne pepper nut is a nut that is made up for a sort of trick, and sold with others without it—it is sold for a sort of trick—perhaps one or two are put in a parcel, and whoever gets them gets his throat burnt—I did not eat them—he got one of them—I have tasted one—some are stronger than others—they have the taste of the cayenne very strong.

JEREMIAH SMITH . I am an attorney at Rugeley—I am acquainted with the prisoner, and was also acquainted with the late Mr. Cook—I saw Mr. Cook at the Talbot Arms on Friday, the 16th Nov.—I saw him in his bedroom about ten o'clock in the morning—I was present at his breakfast—a small tray was put on the bed—he was in bed—he took a cup of tea for breakfast—a wineglass of brandy was brought in—that was put in one cup of tea, which he drank—I dined in his company at Mr. Palmer's—I am not quite positive whether I had seen him in the interval between breakfast and dinner—we had a rump steak for dinner—we had some champagne to drink with it, and some port wine after dinner—Mr. Cook drank the same as we did—we had three bottles, and he drank his share—we had either two of champagne and one of port, or two of port and one of champagne—there were Mr. Cook, myself, and Mr. Palmer—dinner was over, I should think, about half-past two—we left the house, I should think, towards six in the evening—Mr. Palmer said he would go and write his letters—we rose from table, I should think, from about five to six—I and Mr. Cook left the house together—we went to my house, and from there to the Albion hotel, which is next door—we there had a glass of brandy and water each, cold—Mr. Cook left me there—before he went away he said he felt cold, and he put his feet on the fender and warmed himself a little, and he borrowed a book, and he said he would go home and read it in bed—he left the Albion, I should think, from seven to eight—I cannot say precisely.

Q. Had you, at any time, on that day, any conversation with Mr. Cook on the subject of the money due to you, that conversation being in the presence of the prisoner? A. Yes—in the afternoon of the Friday, after dinner, we were talking about racing and money; I asked Mr. Cook for money, and he gave me 5 l . then—I

asked him for 50 l .—he gave me 5 l . then; and when he took the note but of his case, I said, "You can pay me the whole 50 l .,"—he said, "No"—I said, "Mr. Cook, you can pay me air—he said, "No, there is only 41 l . 10 s . due to you"—then he said he had given Mr. Palmer money, and he would pay me the remainder when he returned from Tattersall's on Monday, after the settling—on the Saturday night following he was not well, and I slept in his room, a double bedded room at the Inn—it was late when we retired to bed—I should think 12 o'clock—there had been a concert in the house, which made it later—it was close to the bedroom—in the early part of the night he was unwell—he had got some toast and water, and was washing his mouth, gargling his throat, and he was sick—a night-chair was in the room, at a short distance before the tire, and I saw him there—I saw him use it once, at least—he tried to vomit—I do not know whether he did or not—I was in bed, and I did not get out of bed; he retched—about 2 o'clock I went to sleep; I had been out shooting, and I was tired—the noise had ceased in the inn, and I went off to sleep, and I slept until Mr. Palmer and Mr. Bamford came in in the morning to see him; I lay still in the bed, and I heard a conversation between the doctors and Mr. Cook—the conversation was to this effect: Mr. Bamford said, "Well, Mr. Cook, how are you this morning?"—he said, "I am rather better this morning; I slept from about 2 or 3 o'clock, after the confounded concert was gone, after the house had become quiet"—Mr. Bamford said, "I will send you some more medicine"—I do not recollect any further conversation—I got up and left the house—I know Mrs. Palmer, the mother of the prisoner—on the evening of Monday Mrs. Palmer sent me a message to come up, she wanted to see me—I went to Mrs. Palmer's, and saw her—in consequence of what passed between us, I went to look for the prisoner, and see if he had arrived—I should think that was about 9 o'clock—I could not find him at that hour—as near as I can recollect it was 10 minutes past 10 o'clock when I first saw him that evening—he came from the direction of Stafford in a car—he said, "Have you seen Mr. Cook to-day?"—I said, "No, I have been to Lichfield on business"—he said, "We had better just run up and see him"—that was before he went into his own house—he said, "before we go down to mother's; or it will be too late"—we went up to Mr. Cook's room together—Mr. Cook said to Mr. Palmer, "You are late, doctor, to-night; I did not expect you to look in"—he said, "I have taken my medicine, you being late, I did not think you would be here, and I have taken my medicine"—we did not stay more than two or three minutes—I think he did ask me why I had not called in earlier, and I told him I had been to Lichfield on business.

Q. Did he describe in any way the medicine he had taken? A. He said that Bamford had sent him some pills, and he had taken them as Palmer was late; intimating that he should not have taken them if he had thought Palmer would have called in before—I forget what inquiries Palmer made of him—I recollect Mr. Cook telling Mr. Palmer that he had been up with Ashmall and Saunders—Mr. Cook said, "I have been up, doctor, to day?" and Mr. Palmer said, "You ought not to have been up"—I do not recol lect anything else that passed—we then both went straight from there to his mother's—Mrs. Palmer's house is about 400 or 500 yards from the Talhot Arms—we were there, I should think, half an hour—we left Mrs. Palmer's house together, and went to Palmer's house; I went in with him and asked him for some liquor—I did not get it—he said there was none up out of the cellar—I asked him for a glass of grog, I had been waiting for him—it was cold, it was November—I left the house after that—I left Mr. Palmer

in his house, and went home—I did not order anything to be made that night at the Albion for Mr. Cook—I did the next day—I invited Mr. Cook to dine with me on the Saturday—on the Friday, after I dined with Mr. Palmer, I asked Mr. Cook and Mr. Palmer to dine with me on the Saturday following—Cook did not dine with me—he sent me a message about 12 or 1 o'clock, that he was not well, and he thought that he should not leave his room, and he did not dine with me—I had a boiled leg of mutton for dinner, and I sent some of the broth to him—it went from the Albion in a jug, by a charwoman from Palmer's, named Rowley, I think Ann Rowley—shortly before Mr. Cook's death I borrowed money for bin—I borrowed 200 l . and negotiated a loan from Pratt of 500 l . in May and August—I have given the particulars to the prosecution, I have been subpœnaed for the prosecution—the 200 l . was in May, 1855, I am almost positive, because I think it was at the Shrewsbury races—I do not now recollect whether I borrowed any other sum of 200 l . for Mr. Cook—I nego tiated two loans, the 200 l . and the 500 l ., through Pratt—I borrowed 100 l . of Mrs. Palmer and 100 l : of William Palmer, to make up the 200 l .—I do not recollect any other 200 l ., but I might have—I only know of my own knowledge that Palmer and Cook were jointly interested in one horse—I told the solicitor for the prosecution the same—it was Pyrrhine—they were in the habit of betting for each other very frequently—when Palmer's horses were going to run, Mr. Cook would ask Palmer to allow him to put money on because he thought he should get better odds; and when Cook's horses were going to run, Palmer would ask him to allow him to put on—they put on for each other frequently; it was a common occurrence—I have seen Mr. Palmer's assistant, Thirlby, dress Cook's throat with caustic—I am not quite positive whether it was before or after Shrewsbury races—I cannot tell exactly the times, I think it was chiefly before the races—I have here a genuine signature of Mr. Cook's, which, having seen him write, I know to be his writing ( produced )—here are two notes I received from him, and these instructions for the 500 l .—I saw him write the instructions—they are for a mortgage—one is signed "J. P. Cook," and the other, "J. Parsons Cook"—I saw that signed, but the other was sent in an envelope, which I did not keep—here are two notes and a memorandum—I was not present when a writ was served upon Mr. Cook—he was served with a writ, I know—I cannot say that he gave me any instructions as to the writ shortly before his death, instructions to enter an appearance-( Letters read : "My dear sir,—I have been in a devil of a fix about the bill, but have at last settled it, although at a cost of an extra two guineas, for the damned discounter had issued a writ against me, and I am very much disgusted at it—John Parsons Cook")—I have destroyed the envelope in which that letter was conveyed—they were both addressed to me ("25th June, 1855.—Dear Jerry ,—I should like to have the bill renewed for two months more; can it be done? let me know by return; at 4, Victoria street, Holborn-bridge. I have scratched Polestar for the Nottingham shire and Wolverhampton stakes; I shall be down on Friday or Saturday. In haste, yours sincerely, J. Parsons Cook. Fred tells me Bolton or Arabas will win the Northumberland Plate")—I saw this written, "J. P. Cook."—( Memorandum read : "Polestar, 3 yrs.; Sirius, 2 yrs.; by way of mortgage, to secure 500 l . advanced on a bill of exchange, dated 29th August, 1855, payable three months after date")—that was the instructions before the mortgage of the assignment of two horses.

COURT . Q. What is this, "Care of Mr. I. Fisher?" A. Ishmael Fisher—the

answer to that note was to be sent to Mr. Fisher's care, for Mr. Cook—I have no doubt that it was—I kept no copy—I did not know that I should be asked the date.

Cross-examined by MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. I want to identify you, if I can, there are two Mr. Smiths: are you the gentleman thai took Myatt to Stafford Gaol, and was there two hours? A. Yes—I have known the Palmers long and very intimately—I have been employed a good deal as the attorney for Palmer and his family; some members of his family—I have been employed as attorney for Palmer a good deal.

Q. Did he apply to you in Dec., 1854, to attest a proposal on the life of his brother Walter for 13,000 l . at the Solicitors' and General Office? A. I have been told there is such a thing—I cannot say if he applied to me to sttest such a document—if I could see the document I could say whether it was my handwriting—it is so long since; but if I could see any document with my name to it, I could recognise it instantly—I am on my oath, and am speaking to the best of my belief, I do not recollect—I will not swear that I was not applied to for that purpose, nor that I was, but if I could see the document, I could recognise it immediately.

Q. In Jan., 1855, were you applied to by Palmer to attest a proposal lor 13,000 l . to the Prince of Wales Office on his brother Walter's, life? A. I do not recollect that either—13,000 l . was a large sum for Walter Palmer—I do not know that he was a man of nothing, that he his not a shilling in the world—I know that Walter Palmer had money, because he lived independent, out of business—I do not know that he was then in great distress, and that he was at that time an uncertificated bankrupt—he had been a bankrupt—that was six years before—at least that—he had not done anything for himself since—he had been in no business.

Q. Do not you know he was at that time living upon an allowance of 1 l . per week from his mother? A. I cannot tell the allowance, I never heard what it was—I know that he had an allowance—I do not know that he had anything from any other source—I think his brother William gave him money at different times—I do not say thai he had an allowance from his mother, because I never saw it paid, and I do not know the amount—in 1864 I think I resided partly with William Palmer—sometimes I was at his mother's—I slept at his mother's sometimes.

Q. When you slept at the mother's, where did you sleep? A. In a room—it was not in liers.

Q. I ask you, upon your oath, whether you were not intimate with her, you know what I mean? A. I was not—I was no more intimate with her than a proper intimacy—I slept there, I cannot say the number of times, but frequently: I should say two or three times a week—I had my own place of abode in Bugeley—I am a single man—this habit and practice of sleeping two or three times a week at Mrs. Palmer's, continued for several years—I had my own lodgings at Bugeley at the time, my own chambers—I had chambers in Rugeley—lodgings—I had a bedroom—I should say my lodging is nearly a quarter of a mile from Mrs. Palmer's.

Q. Will you be so good as to explain how it happened that, having your own place of abode and your own bedroom, that for several years you slept two or three times a week in Mrs. Palmer's house? A. Sometimes some of the members of the family used to come and visit her, her sons; Joseph used—he has latterly resided at Liverpool—I should think for two years—before that he lived at a place seven miles from Rugeley, and he went to a place called, I think, Worley, about eleven miles off—Walter used to come

and visit Mrs. Palmer—sometimes he lived at Stafford, and sometimes he was at Liverpool—he did not live at Rugeley long together, sometimes two or three weeks—he died at Stafford, I believe—I was not present at the time—I understood so when I returned from Thurlow—when I went to see the members of the family, I used to stop and have a glass or two of gin and water, and play at cards—I went to the mother's to see them.

Q. But you did not sleep at the mother's to see them; how was it that you did not go home? A. I had no particular reason why I did not—I used to have some gin and water, and play at cards, and smoke, and if it was late they used to say, "You had better stop all night"—this went on three times a week for several years—but I used to stop there frequently when there was no one there, neither the mother, nor the sons, nor any one—they used to go to Buxton for a month in the summer—I have slept there when the sons were not there, and when the mother was—I could not state the number of times that happened—two or three times a week, for two or three months together, and sometimes I did not go nigh, for a week, or a month I have been away from the house—and then I would go for two or three nights for two or three weeks, when there was nobody there but the lady—there was only the mother, and the daughter, and the servants—I could have gone home on those nights, but I did not—I could not say that I did when I did not—I mean to say before this jury that there was nothing but a proper intimacy between myself and Mrs. Palmer.

Q. I have called your attention to two of these proposals; were you called upon to attest another proposal in the Universal Office for 13,000 l . upon the life of Walter Palmer? A. I cannot say—let me look at the paper and I will tell you—I do not recollect that I was, but if I could set any letter, or my name written to it, I could say.

Q. I ask you as an attorney and a man of business, do you mean to say that you cannot give me an answer whether you were applied to by William Palmer to attest a proposal for an insurance upon his brother's life, more than once, for 13,000 l .? A. I cannot recollect it, but if I could see any document or any letter to remind me of the circumstance I would not deny it.

COURT . Q. Were you ever called upon to witness a proposal for an in surance upon Walter Palmer's life for 13,000 l .? A. I do not recollect that.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Do you remember getting a 5 l . note for attesting an assignment by Walter Palmer to his brother of such a policy? A. Most likely I might—I do not recollect it—I might have received some money.

COURT . Q. Were you called upon to attest the assignment of a policy by Walter Palmer to his brother? A. I do not recollect it now.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. I will endeavour to bring it to your recol lection; just look at that, and tell me whether that is your signature ( handing a paper to the witness )—do not you know your own signature? Without reading the document, is that your signature? A. It is very similar to my signature—I have some little doubt about it—I have some doubt that it is not my handwriting—I have not read through the do cument.

Q. Then do so. Now, sir, was that prepared in your office or not? A. It was not—it is very similar to my handwriting—it is very much like my handwriting; but, upon ray soul—

COURT . Q. Do you believe that it is your handwriting? A. I think it is not my handwriting.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Will you swear that it is not? A. I durst venture to swear—I will swear—I will swear that it is not my hand writing, "Rugeley" is not my handwriting—I have my doubts that it is not my handwriting—I know my own handwriting when I see it.

COURT . Q. You have said, "I swear it is not my handwriting?" A. I think it is a very good imitation of my handwriting—I believe it is not.

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . Q. Look at the signature of Walter Palmer, and say whether that is a good imitation? A. I believe that to be Walter Palmer's signature—the attestation, "signed, sealed, and delivered," is in Mr. Pratt's handwriting—most likely I might receive that from Mr. Pratt myself—I cannot swear it—I think it is very likely it might have been sent to William Palmer—I think Mr. Palmer gave it to me—I believe he did—I do not recollect—I have heard talk of this document, and I have asked to see it many times—most likely William Palmer gave it to me—it was not signed at that time—lie did give it me—I have no doubt he did.

Q. If that be the docuraeut which he gave you, bearing Walter Palmer's signature, and the writing of Mr. Pratt, which you say is his, upon your oath, is not that your attestation? A. I tell you it is not—I believe it not to be—I believe I had that document from William Palmer—I believe it not to be my handwriting—I remember it by the manner in which it is folded, and the dirty mark, because I carried it out shooting, and I had a powder flask—it is dirty—it got dirty in my jacket pocket, and I recognise it by that—I applied to the Midland Counties Insurance Office to be appointed their agent at Rugeley—that was in October, 1855—if you would allow me, if you are going on with the examination, I should like to fetch all the documents and papers—I did apply to the Midland Counties Office to be appointed their agent in October, 1855—I sent them a proposal for 10,000 l . upon the life of Bate—I recollect it very well.

Q. Did William Palmer apply to you to send that proposal? A. Bate and Mr. Palmer came together with the proposal to my office—I knew Bate at that time—they came together, and asked me whether I knew if there was any agent for that office in the town of Rugeley, and I told them I never heard of one—they asked me afterwards whether I would write and get an appointment, because Bate wanted to raise some money.

Q. Bid you send to the Midland Office, and get appointed their agent, in order that this insurance for 10,000 l . might be effected on Bate's life? A. I wrote to the office for the purpose of getting appointed then: agent—whatever I did, I did it to get the insurance effected upon Bate's life for 10,000 l ., I will explain the reason why that occurred, I never was an agent for any office, Bate was at thai tame superintending William Palmer's stud and stables, whether at 1 l . per week I cannot tell, he was living at Rugeley; after this I went to the widow of Walter Palmer, to get her to give up her claim upon the policy of her husband—she was at Liver pool—Mr. William Palmer gave me a document from Mr. Pratt to take to her—I think it must have been directed to kim—I believe he gave it me—the widow said that she should like her solicitor to see it, and I said, "By all means"—she finally refuted to do it—I brought back the document—I said, "I have no instructions to leave it, but if Mr. William Palmer wishes you to do it, it shall be returned to you."

Q. When you got that document, the signature to which you say you doubt whether it is in your handwriting or not, do not you know that Walter Palmer signed the document, and that the signature to it is his? A. I believe it is—I believe he ultimately had something—he had a house

furnished for him—I do not know that he got a pill for 200 l .—I cannot tell that that bill was never paid—I do not recollect knowing that from William Palmer—I knew William furnished the house—I do not know that there was a man put into that house, who kept possession of it from the time that the assignment was executed.

Q. I will refresh your memory a little as to these proposals—look at that ( handing a paper to the witness ), and tell me whether that is your hand writing? A. Yes, that is my own signature—I do not recollect that I was applied to by William Palmer in the month of December, 1854, to attest a proposal upon his brother's life for 13,000 l . in the Solicitors' and General Office, I might have been—it is from memory I am speaking, and therefore I wish to be as correct as I can—I say I have no doubt I might, the time is so long ago.

Q. Look at that document ( handing a paper to the witness ) and see who ther, in a month afterwards, you were applied to by William Palmer to attest another proposal for 13,000 l .? A. That is my signature also.

Q. Refreshing your memory by that document; you said if you had the document you could tell, have you any doubt that in the month of January, 1855, you were called upon by William Palmer to attest another proposal upon his brother's life for 13,000 l . in another office? A. If you will give me the paper, perhaps I can tell you—this is my signature to it—the body seeins to have been filled up by Mr. Palmer—I might have signed it in blank—I cannot swear that I did or did not—I nave some doubt whether I did not sign several of those in blank—the body is in William Palmer's writing.

Q. Do not trifle, sir, with the Court, and with the jury, and myself; upon your oath, looking at that document, do not you know that William Palmer applied to you to attest a proposal upon his brother's life for 13,000 l . in January in that office? A. He did apply to me for a proposal in some offices in January—one was for 13,000 l .—I might be applied to to attest another for a like sum in the Universal Office, for this simple reason, they might say that they had not insured in the other, and I had no reason to know—I do not recollect having any answers at all—I am not aware of being applied to by William Palmer to attest a proposal to the Universal Office after the execution of that assignment of the policy which I knew that Walter Palmer signed—I think I might venture to swear that I was not—I should be very sorry, if I was not quite positive, to speak that which was not true—I do not know when the document bears date—I have never seen the assignment till I saw it this morning—William Palmer gave it to me, but it was not signed then—I do not recollect that I was present when it was signed—it is a very good imitation of my writing.

Q. Will you swear that you were not present when it was signed, when Walter Palmer executed the deed of assignment; now, be cautious, you will hear of this another day if you do not take care; will you swear upon your oath that you were not present when Walter Palmer signed that document? A. I do not know—I say that the "Jeremiah Smith" is very much like my writing—this part,"Solicitor, Rugeley," does not look like mine—I am not quite positive whether, upon some occasion or other, I did not attest a deed of assignment by Walter Palmer to his brother of his interest in the policy for 13,000 l .—as I said before, I believe the "Jeremiah Smith" is very much like my writing, but "Rugeley" is not.

Q. I ask you the question upon your oath, whether at some time or other you did not attest the assignment by Walter Palmer to William Palmer of

the policy for 13,000 l .? A. I might—as I said before, it is a very good imitation—I might have attested it—I really do not recollect.

Q. Did not you get a cheque for 5 l . for doing it? A. I wish to have it brought to my recollection.

Q. Look at that ( a paper ) and say whether you did not see William Pal mer write that on the counterfoil of his cheque book; is that his hand writing? A. That is William Palmer's handwriting—I might have seen him write it—I cannot swear positively that I did.

Q. Did you get a piece of paper, and go to the bank and get 5 l . upon it? A. I most likely might—I might have got it from the bank, but not for the purpose of signing that document—I say that I might have got 5 l . from the bank, but not for attesting that document—I am not positive that I got it for attesting the signature of Walter Palmer.

Q. That piece of paper seems to burn your fingers? A. No, upon my honour it does not—I am come here to speak the truth as far as my memory serves me, for or against—the 200 l . I got for Mr. Cook was, 100 l . from Mrs. Palmer, and the other from William Palmer—and he gave 10 l . to William Palmer for the accommodation.

Q. Do not you know that he gave William Palmer his acceptance upon that occasion to enable him to make up the sum of 500 l .? A. I know that William Palmer was the drawer of the bill, and Mr. Cook was the acceptor—he received 200 l . minus 10 l . in cash—I believe that the 200 l . bill was not given for the purpose of enabling William Palmer to make up the sum of 500 l . payable to Mr. Sargent, for Mr. Cook had absolute cash, the 200 l . I speak of—he did not have it to enable him to go to London to take up an acceptance—he went to Shrewsbury races with it—I am speaking of the time when the money was lent by Mrs. Palmer and William Palmer—I think it was in May—I believe Shrewsbury races take place in May, the early part of May—I do not know what became of the bill—Mr. Cook gave him a bill for 200 l ., and he had the absolute cash—I brought 100 l . from William Palmer's mother, a hundred pound note, and he had that which Mr. Palmer gave—the bill was drawn in favour of William Palmer—that is the bill that is referred to in one of these notes—it was cashed—it was charged two guineas—I do not know what became of it—he writes to me about a money lender issuing a writ—that money lender was Mr. Pratt, I believe—I do not know that—when the bill was given I handed it over to Mr. Palmer—what he did with it I do not know—I cannot tell whether Palmer discounted it with Mr. Pratt—I have never seen the bill since—that was not at the very time that William Palmer was short of money—he was not short of money because he lent Mr. Cook 100 l .—I do not know that he wanted some money to make up the sum of 500 l . payable to Mr. Sargent—he lent Mr. Cook 100 l .—he lent him 90 l ., and he took 10 l . for the accommodation—I weni once to Mr. Palmer when he was in Stafford gaol, but never spoke to him on the subject of this trial—during the time that I was there an officer was in the room—I was at the inquest, but I was not examined, excepting there was something named about the assignment, and I said, if it was produced I would say whether it was my handwriting as the attesting witness—I was not present at the inquest on Mr. Cook—T was staying in the town.

Q. Who saw you when you went in on Monday night to Mr. Cook's room at the Talbot Arms? A. I cannot say whether it was Miss Bond, or whether it was the chambermaid, or the waiter—they gave us a candle, and we went up stairs—I cannot say whether I took the candle or Mr. Palmer—it was the waiter, or Miss Bond, or the chambermaid—I do not

know that they saw us—we asked for a candle—I cannot tell you who saw me that night go into the Talbot Arms, and go up to Mr. Cook's room—Mr. Palmer was in a hurry to get down to his mother's—I cannot say which of the three saw me go into the hotel that night—I believe it was one of the three—I believe one of the servants gave us a candle—I believe it to have been one of those three—I did not notice the man who drove the fly from Stafford—I did not notice the man—it was cold, and I did not notice which of the drivers it was.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE . Q. How long have you known Mrs. Palmer? A. Many years, twenty years, I should say—I knew her before her hus band's death—I was not acquainted with her then—it is many years since her husband died, upwards of twenty years ago—I should think Mrs. Palmer is about sixty years of age, by her sons—she has grandchildren, and I should say she is sixty—William is not her eldest son, Joseph is—he is a timber merchant in Liverpool—I should think he is about forty five or forty-six—I think George is the next son—that is the gentleman now present—he lived at Rugeley—he was frequently at his mother's—he was acquainted with me—there is a son a clergyman of the Church of England—he lives at Coton-in-Elmes, sixteen miles from Rugeley—he was frequently at his mother's till he became a curate—when he came from college he stayed at her house—it is two years since he ceased to reside at his mother's house—up to that time he lived at his mother's, except when he was at college—they have a sister—she lives with her mother—there are three servants—they do not go out very much in the neighbourhood—being a large family them-selves, they do not visit much—it is a good-sized house—I think there are five bed rooms, six altogether—there is a room for the man, and the maids occupy one—there are four rooms for the family, and two for the servants—I slept in one nearest the old church, on the opposite side, and the new church is facing the house—the old church is at the side.

Q. Is there any pretence for saying, or have you ever been charged with any improper intimacy with Mrs. Palmer? A. I should hope not—there ought not to be any pretence for anything of the kind.

Q. Cannot you answer the question; is there or is there not any pretence for saying, or is there any truth in the statement or suggestion that you have been improperly intimate at any time with Mrs. Palmer? A. They might have said so, but they have no reason to say so—I should say there is not any truth in that statement; I mean not—I do not recollect the proposal to in sure Walter Palmer's life coming to my knowledge till the inquest was held on Mrs. Palmer—there was some talk then about my being connected with some insurances.

( William Joseph Sounders was again called on his subpoena, but did not appear. )

The following letter was handed in and read as follows: ("Lutterworth, 4th of January, 1855. My dear Sir,—I sent up to London on Tuesday to back St. Hubert for 50 l ., and my commissioner has returned 10 to 1. I have therefore backed 250 l . to 25 l . against him to our gain. There is a small balance of 18 l . due to you which I forgot to give you the other day. Tell Will to debit me with it on account of your share of training Pyrrhina I will also write to him to do so, as there will be a balance due from him to me. Yours faithfully,—J. Parsons Cook.—W. Palmer, Esq.")

( MR. SERJEANT SHEE . submitted that he was entitled to a reply, in con sequence of the course which the ATTORNEY-GENERAL . had taken in getting out the substance of a cheque, and the contents of an assignment of a policy on Walter Palmers life, which he might just as well have read, and his

examining the witness as regards proposals to various office for inversions THE COURT . was of opinion that there was no right to reply. )

MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL . having replied, the Court adjourned.

Monday , 26 th, May, and part of Tuesday, 27th, was occupied by LORD. CAMPBELL'S . summing up.

GUILTY . Aged 31.— DEATH .

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES .

OLD COURT .— Monday, May 12 th , 1856.

PRESENT —The Right Hon. the LORD MAYOR ; Mr. Ald. SIDNEY .;

Sir FRANCIS GRAHAM MOON , Bart., Ald.; Mr. RECORDER .; Mr. Ald.

FINNIS .; Sir ROBERT WALTER CARDEN , Knt., Ald.; Mr. Ald. EAGLE TON .; and Mr. Ald. LAWRENCE .

Before Mr. Recorder and the First Jury.

491. HENRY WILLIAMS was indicted for a burglary in the dwelling house of Joseph Bishop , and stealing 40 rolls of ribbon, 23 neck ties, and 17 pairs of gloves, his property.

JOSEPH BISHOP . I am a draper, at No. 7, Market-street, Stepney. Oh Saturday night, 8th March, I shut up the shop and premises—I live on the premises—the shop was not'opened on the Sunday—I was in the shop between 10 and 11 o'clock in the morning—it was then perfectly safe—I went to bed about 10 o'clock on Sunday night—T had not seen the shop since the morning, it appeared all quite secure, the shutters were up—I was aroused, between 1 and 2 o'clock on the Monday morning, by a policeman—I then went down to the shop—I found an outside shutter had been moved on one side, and a square of glass broken—I missed three boxes of ribbon, neck ties, and gloves—a person could reach them by putting an arm through the broken pane, it was not more than twenty or thirty inches from the window—the shop communicates with the dwelling house—there are two houses, but I made a door communicating between the two—I kept that door looked, and kept the key.

WILLIAM CHURCH . ( policeman, K 304). On Monday morning, 10th March, I was on duty in High-street, Stepney, about half past 1 o'clock, and saw three men walking along, and the prisoner on the opposite side, with a bag on his right shoulder—I spoke to the sergeant, and went across for the purpose of stopping the prisoner—as soon as I got in front of him, he made a dart on one side to avoid me—I then made a grasp at him and the bag, and in so doing I was kicked between the feet, and fell on the ground on my knees—I instantly rose, and sprang my rattle for assistance, and called out "Stop thief!"—the prisoner ran away, I retained the bag—I did not see him stopped, I lost sight of him at the time I was getting up off my knees—he was taken by West, another constable, I should say a good 400 yards from the spot where he left me—he ran in the direction of Stepney-green; there is a bit of a bend in the road, and I just lost sight of him there—when I first got up on my feet I saw him, and I lost sight of him as he went round the bend towards Stepney-green—I followed him round

the corner, but did not see him till he was brought back to me by another constable—I should say that was nearly a quarter of an hour afterwards—I was looking after the prisoner during that time—I had been round Garnet-street, in some other direction—he must have taken one turning, and I another—I have no doubt whatever that he is the man—there was a gas lamp near the spot—I pointed out to West the place where I had seized the prisoner—I searched the prisoner at the station, and found on him a knife and a tobacco pouch—I went with the sergeant nexfc morning, and saw him compare this knife with the marks on the prosecutor's shutter and in the putty—I have the bag here—it contains gloves and other things.

Prisoner. Q. When the other policeman brought me back, did not you say, "We will make him answer our purpose, as we cannot find the other"? A. No, nor anything to that effect—I said, "That is the man"—that was all I said—I am sure the prisoner is the man—he had a grey rough coat on—it was the prisoner who kicked me between the feet, and tripped me up.

JAMES WEST . ( policeman, K 308). I was on duty, on the morning of 10th March, in Garnet-street, near Stepney-green, and about half past 1 o'clock I heard the springing of a rattle, and the cry of "Stop thief!"—I saw the prisoner and two more men running—I made a grasp at the prisoner, and laid hold of him by the left side, and I was tripped up by two men who were following him—I seized the prisoner by the left breast—as soon as I laid hold of him I was tripped up by two men who were follow ing close behind—I let go of him directly I fell down—I got up and pursued him—I followed him about 500 or 600 yards, and never lost sight of him except momentarily, in turning round the corner from one street into another—I sprang my rattle, at the same time I saw the constable coming up—I sang out , "Stop thief!" and the prisoner immediately stopped, and placed himself against a wall, under a lamp—he was taken into custody—another constable came up to him rather before me, but I took charge of him—I told him he must go back with me to where the springing of the rattle was—he said, "What for?"—I took him back on to the Green, the place where the springing of the rattle was—it was in Fayer-terrace that I stopped him, opposite the station—I met Church on Stepney-green, about 500 or 600 yards from the spot where he was taken into custody—Church said, on seeing the prisoner, "That is the man"—the prisoner denied it, and said he had done nothing—Church afterwards pointed out to me the place where he had first seized him—that was about 150 yards from where I first saw the prisoner running—he appeared to be coming from that direction, and I saw the light turned on at the same time they were running—the prisoner is the man—he had on a rough coat and a black cap—when I took him he was very much out of breath—he could scarcely speak.

Prisoner. That was because they knocked me about so.

ROBERT YOUNG . ( police sergeant, K 9). I was present when the prisoner was searched—I saw this knife found upon him—I afterwards compared it I with five dents in the window putty at the prosecutor's premises—there was a pane of glass broken, but not taken out—they had apparently attempted to get it out whole—it was broken sufficient to admit of a man's hand, I could put mine in—there is a bend on the point of the knife which exactly corresponds with the marks in the window—the shutter had been prised by some instrument—on the pavement near the shutter I found some matches partly burnt—I received a jemmy and a chisel from the

witness Rawlinson—I compared this jemmy with some marks underneath the shutter, and also on the window sill, they appeared to correspond—the chisel corresponded with a dent in the window sill, and the jemmy was used to prise the shutter up—I was with Church at the time the prisoner passed—Rawlinson lives in Wellington-place—the prisoner would pass his house, it turns out of High-street, Stepney.

JAMES WEST . re-examined. I saw the prisoner go through Wellington-place—I ran after him through there, and flaw him pass Mr. Rawlinson's premises—I did not see him drop anything—I was running and springing my rattle at the time.

GEORGE RAWLINSON . I live at No. 4, Wellington-place, Stepney. I picked up these two instruments, at 8 o'clock in the morning, about twenty-one feet from my door, on the flag of a door step on the opposite side—I sent them over to the station—in order to go from High-street, Stepney, to Garnet-street, a person would pass through Wellington-place.

JOSEPH BISHOP . re-examined. These are my goods—there are plain marks on the ribbons, in my own writing—the other things are not marked.

Prisoners Defence. I am innocent; I had been to a friend's house, and stopped rather late, and was returning, when the policeman came up, and Mid he wanted me; I asked what it was for; he took me back to the other policeman; they knocked me down and kicked me shamefully; I had only been in London three days; I come from Manchester.

GUILTY . Aged 19.— Confined Eighteen Months .

492. WILLIAM GRAVES , stealing 1 spoon and 1 fork, value 18 s .; the goods of Joseph Worth Croom : having been before convicted: to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 19.— Confined Twelve Months .

493. ALFRED FREDERICK COMPERE , stealing 2 boxes, and other articles; the goods of Henry Walker , his master: to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 15.— Confined Six Months .

( There was another indictment against the prisoner, for a misdemeanor. )

494. WILLIAM CLEMENTS , stealing 30lbs. weight of bark; the goods of Samuel Lloyd Howard .—2nd COUNT , unlawfully receiving the same.

MR. ROBINSON . conducted the Prosecution.

SAMUEL LLOYD HOWARD . I carry on business at Deptford, as a manufacturing chemist—there are five partners in the firm—we buy a large quantity of Peruvian bark of the importers—we buy a very large pro-portion of that which comes to this country—the prisoner was in our service for about thirteen months—in consequence of certain matters that came to my knowledge, he was dismissed in Nov.—he was one of those who ground the bark, one of the millers—this ( produced ) is the sort of stuff that it would be when ground—it is not a marketable article in this condition—this is one of the processes of making it into quinine—there being no mark or anything about this, I cannot, of course, swear to it, but as near as it is possible to swear to anything, I can, like a mechanic can swear to a tool of his own making, without being able to explain exactly why—to the best of my belief, it is my bark, I have no moral doubt about it—I cannot swear to the paper in which it is wrapped, it is similar paper to that we use.

GEORGE EVANS . I am a miller, in the prosecutor's employ. The prisoner was in their employment some time before he left—I found a parcel of bark

in the water house Against the wheel—I moved it and laid it in the same place, but further up—I came on again at night, and moved it again into the mill, and let it lie till next morning—I did not say anything about it, and at breakfast time next morning, the prisoner came and said, "I think I am let into a great secret"—I said, "Oh! what is that?"—he said, " Fred Wallidge wanted a little piece of bark for himself, and I asked him to put up a little piece for me, as I wanted a little piece for a friend, and I am afraid the foreman has found it and taken it to the counting house"—he said that it had been put in the water house for him, and when he went to look it was gone—I said that I had found it—he said, "Oh, you found it, then, that is all right, I shall tell the master"—when he said that it was a little piece, I said, "There is three or four pounds of it"—I had not then weighed it, but I did afterwards, and it weighed three pounds and a half—he said that he did not see it, he did not put it there, the other man put it there—he begged me not to say anything about it, for the sake of their wives and families; and if I did not they would never do anything of the kind any more—Wallidge was with him, and they asked me to have some beer; I said that I did not want any—I made a communication to the foreman, Mr. Mason, and he told me to let it be till he found them out, he should like to find them out himself—on a subsequent occasion I was on the grind ing floor, and heard some one up stairs—I went up the ladder, and saw Clements putting a brown paper parcel into his pocket—I said, "What game now, Clements?"—he said, "I am mending my old pocket;" another witness heard him as well—he had a smock on which came down to his knees—I know Beckley, I saw him tried about three months since; I saw him on one occasion in front of the mill talking to Clements, who was at work, that was in the latter part of the summer—the bark is of the same description as my master's, and I believe it to be his—I live at No. 5, Stratford-place, and the prisoner lived nearly opposite to me, but before he was discharged he moved into West-street, I think it is called, or South-street—I only saw him twice up to the time of Beckley's apprehension, which was very soon after he left our place—after Beckley's apprehension I went with the police, but could not find him anywhere.

Prisoner. Q. Will you take your oath that you saw me putting the bark into my pocket? A. Yes—I am not selling my soul for the sake of revenge.

ALFRED FULLER . I am a labourer in the prosecutor's service. I saw the prisoner go up stairs, and saw him putting a paper parcel in his pocket—that was a month or two after we found the parcel, he remained in the service about two months after that—I have heard the conversation Evans has detailed, it is true—two or three days after the parcel was found I was talking to the prisoner, and he said, "The bark is not worth so much a pound as they have stated, by a good bit"—I said, "How can you know?"—he said, "I have a friend in London who is in the habit of buying bark," and that his friend had been an assistant in a doctor's shop—he said that we might all be as happy as the birds in the air if it was not for that b—y black-legged old b—, meaning Evans; and that we might put a few shillings into each other's pocket if it was not for him—I told him that I should not have anything to do with it, he would not put any money into my pocket that way—he said that we were not like they were at other places, but we were all against each other—I was present when the parcel was found by Evans—I was not down when the conversation between Evans and the prisoner began, but I heard the latter part—I heard the prisoner

swearing at Evans, and he told him to hold his noise about it and he Would stand some beer; but Evans said that he would not hare any.

THOMAS JOHN GOUGH . I am a tailor, of No, 5, Lauderdale-buildings, Aldersgate-street. Beckley lodged with me till some short time after Nov. last, and the prisoner used to come to see him, sometimes once a week, and sometimes twice—he came invariably on Saturday evenings, and occasionally on Tuesday evenings, and he invariably carried a basket; and on one occa sion I saw in it something in a brown paper, parcel—one Saturday night, about 6 o'clock in the evening, it might be three weeks prior to Beckley, being taken, the prisoner came; I opened the door, and he asked for Beckley, I told him he was not within; he seemed vexed, and said that he had come a long journey, from Stratford, and was tired—I told him if he liked to leave his banket, which seemed to be heavy, I would take care of it till Beckley came—he declined leaving it, and said that he would go over to the public house opposite, and await Beckley's return, if I would let one of my children let him know when Beckley came in, and invited me to partake of a little porter at the public house—I told my children, and then went over with him to the public house where he put a brown paper parcel on a form, and I saw a brown powder which seemed to ooze from it, as it does from these parcels produced—I did not remain two minutes with him, I had no drink—I did not see him afterwards at my house, but my children told me something—subsequent to Beckley's apprehension, I saw him at my house and opened the door to him, and I met him in Barbican after Beckley'a apprehension, and noticed that his whiskers were shaved off.

Prisoner. I know nothing of this person, nor yet the statement he has made.

CHANLES OGBURN . ( City policeman 26). On 5th Dec, I apprehended Beckley—I searched his lodging, No. 5, Lauderdale-buildiugs, Aldersgate-street, and found some articles, but not the drugs; I found them at No, 92 1/2, Aldersgate-street, in a third floor room, a lodging which, the mother of the girl who was living with Beckley took, after Beckley wan in custody—it was a Miss Heath who he was living with—I there found the four parcels pro duced—I saw Miss Heath there, that is her ( pointing to her )—I endea voured to apprehend the prisoner, and went with Evans to his house, but Evans did not go in with me; I found the prisoner's wife there, but could get no tidings of him for four or five days after Beckley was taken.

ELIZABETH HEATH . I lived with Beckley, at No. 5, Lauderdale-buildings. I knew of these parcels being there, they were Beckley's property, he brought them there—I helped to remove them to the new lodging—I used to see the prisoner at No. 5, Lauderdale-buildings—I did not see him bring any parcels there of any description; his wife used to come with a basket, but not parcels—she brought me a loaf done up in paper two or three times on Saturday evenings.

JOHN WILLIAM MANNING . ( police sergeant, K 5). I telegraphed to Cam bridge, and from information I received, I went dpwn and communicated with the authorities at Houghton, in Huntingdonshire, on 7th March—I went in plain clothes—I had been looking out for the prisoner from the beginning of Dec.—I had seen some furniture leaving his house at dusk, on, 22nd Feb., and afterwards saw it at the railway station at Stratford, addressed, "William Leader, to be left at the railway station, Cambridge, till called for"—that was on a card nailed to each case, I wrote it down at the time, but have not got my pocket book with me: I have an independent

recollection that the name was Leader—it was in consequence of that that I communicated with the police, with instructions to watch the goods—when I went to Houghton I went to the water mill where the prisoner was at work, a flour mill, and saw the prisoner coming down stairs, round a corner of the mill inside, and Evans, who was with me, said, "That is him;" he then turned his back towards us—Evans did not say that loud enough for him to hear, and I do not think he could see Evans—as we approached him, from information I had obtained, I called out, "Simmers;" he said, "Sir;" and turned half round; I called "Simmers" again, and he turned quite round, faced me, and said, "Sir;" I said, "Oh, your name is Clements"—he paused a short time, dropped his head, and said, "It is"—I told him I was about taking him into custody on suspicion of stealing a quantity of bark and other chemicals from his late masters at Stratford—he said, "I know nothing about it, and do not care a d—for fifty b—Howards and Kents"—I said, "What made you leave Stratford?"—he said, "To look for work," and that he had been there about six weeks—I took him into custody; he said that he did not go in the name of Simmers, but I told him that he had.

Prisoner. Q. Who informed you that I went by a wrong name? A. The constable; the foreman asked what Simmers had been at; I said, "That is not his name, his name is Clements," and told him what I took you for—the constable of the parish also told me that you went by the name of Simmers.

JOHN HENRY BREEZE . I am goods clerk at the Eastern Counties Rail way station at St. Ivea, which is about three miles and a half from Hough ton. I only know the prisoner from seeing him at the station—he came there to receive some goods which had come down for him by railway—I cannot say how they were addressed, but he signed his name William Leader in this book in my presence—the book is in my writing, it only gives the name—I took it from the invoice—we held the goods for Leader, and delivered them to him as Leader—I did not see them; somebody else delivered them.

WILLIAM ELY . I am a publican, of Whitton, in Huntingdonshire, adjoin ing Houghton. The prisoner asked my permission for his letters to be addressed to my house, and I gave him leave—four or five letters came, the first one was delivered to him by my wife in my presence—I saw two or three of them delivered to him.

COURT . to , ALFRED FULLER . Q. Where is the bark put after it is ground? A. It is shot on the floor, and afterwards put into casks—we saw placet where bark had been taken off the hoop of the stone which keeps the dust in, that was what he had got to put into his pocket—I missed four or five good handfuls—after it is ground it runs down between the two stones, and the dust flies up and settles, that is the finest—in another room a great deal had been shot down, and we could see where it had been shot down and picked up, none was left but the dust on the floor; that was not a proper place for sifting it—we do not sift it at all.

COURT . to MR. HOWARD . Q. What quantity do you have in a week? A. One or two tons—I cannot tell to what extent my stock has been decreased, from the immense quantity which is ground, and the quantity of dust which hangs in hundredweights about the walls of the room, and which is just as valuable as the rest.

GUILTY . Aged 30.— Confined Two Years .

495. WILLIAM SWILSON and JAMES MARSHALL , stealing 49 l . 10 s . in money, of Robert Gregory .

MR. RYLAND . conducted the Prosecution.

ROBERT GREGORY . I am an emigrant, about to sail in the Sea King for Australia; she is now lying in the London Docks. On Thursday, 1st May, I saw Marshall on board the Sea King —he introduced himself to me as a gentleman going out by the same ship, and said that he had some machinery on board—after talking with him on board for some time about the Colonies and other matters, he got me to walk off with him as far as the Spread Eagle, in Graoechurch-street—from thence he proposed going for a stroll to see the sights of London, and he took me to a public house near West-minster Bridge, and treated me with a glass of ale and a biscuit—while we were there, Marshall came in, he fined me and Swilson—he said that he had just come from America in consequence of an uncle haying left him a great deal of money—he pulled out his money, and showed several notes, end several sovereigns, and seemed greatly rejoiced—he said that he would treat us with a glass each to drink his health, which he did—this was about 3 o'clock in the afternoon—Swilson then proposed that we should go to Cremorne Gardens—we all three left the public house together, and walked about different streets—I am not much acquainted with London—we after wards took a boat—we then went to another public house near Cremorne Gardens—I know it was near Cremorne Gardens, I had beer there—while we were in that public house Swilson gave me a small bag, and also Marshall, and he also said he would give us an American dollar each, to keep for his sake—there was nothing in the bag that he gave me—I had at that time in my possession a bag containing about fifty sove-reigns, among it there were two old guineas—there had been 50 l ., sovereigns and half sovereigns, I had changed one half sovereign—my bag was within another bag, about the same size and colour as tins one ( produced )—I took my bag out of my pocket, and put it on the table before Swilson—Swilson took it up, and also this bag, and said he would put it in for me with the American dollar—he appeared to do so, bag and all, tied it up, and returned it to me, and I put it into my pocket, thinking that I had got my money right—shortly after we all three left the house together—when we had got a little way Swilson said, "I hare forgot my pocket handkerchief, which can run the fastest?"—the other hesitated, and I turned back and ran to see if there was any pocket handkerchief left behind, but there was no pocket handkerchief—I then returned to the spot where I had left the prisoners, and they were both gone—I did not look at my money then—it roused my suspicions, and as soon as I pulled it out, I found my money was gone—I cannot tell at what time that was, it was at some time in that evening—I believe it was as I was going to pay for my breakfast—it must have been next morning, therefore—I Slept at some public house at Ken sington that night—I went to see a cousin, and then to the public house where I slept—next morning, when I was going to pay for my breakfast, I took out my bag and opened it, and none of my sovereigns were there, nor the two guineas, nor the American dollar, but a quantity of farthings, I think more than fifty; part of them are here, the other part I had to pay for my breakfast with, as I had no more money in my pocket—I then gave information to the police—I had never seen the prisoners before—I am perfectly satisfied they are the men.

COURT . Q. What time was it when Swilson came into the public house near Westminster Bridge? A. I should think about 3 o'clock—it was

nearly 5 o'clock when they went away—we had been together more than two hours.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE . Q. Where was it you slept? A. I do not know the name of the public house—I slept alone, and locked myself in—after the prisoners went away, at 5 o'clock, I walked straight on to my cousin's, at Kensington—I went to bed early, before 10 o'clock; it might be about 9 o'clock—I sat with jny cousin, and we had a glass of ale at the public house where I lodged, and a journeyman with him—my cousin then went home, and I went to bed—I first drank a glass of ale with the prisoners, then a glass of brandy and water at the Victoria tavern, and one glass of brandy and water at the place where Swilson came in—I should say we had about three in the course of the day—I believe we went to three public houses—I will not swear we had no more; I will swear we had not a great deal—I never was drunk in my life.

Q. How came you to pull out your money, and allow them to shift it into a different bag? A. From their respectable appearance and manner, I thought they were gentlemen—I had not the slightest suspicion of them—immediately I found they were gone, I put my hand into my pocket, and felt that my bag was all right; I did not look inside until I went to pay for my breakfast—I gave a description of the prisoners, and was for some time looking after them, and Mr. Smith and an officer, 63 F , I believe, came to me, and said they had taken a person on suspicion from my description—I went with them to the station, and saw Swilson in the cell—I looked at him, and hesitated at first; I said his features were like, but his dress and appearance was so much altered that I doubted for the moment; but when I came to hear him speak, and saw him with his other coat on, I had not the slightest hesitation in saying he was the man—we afterwards went with him in a cab somewhere—he pulled his hat off in the cab , and said to me, "Look at me again, and be very careful, for it is a very serious charge; you are quite mistaken in the man," or something of that sort—I did not make any answer—I did not, when the charge was being booked at the police station, say that Swilson had whiskers and eyes like the man, but that I was not positive about him—Swilson told the Magistrate that I had said so, and the Magistrate asked me if I had any doubt about him, and I said, "No, not the least"—Smith did not tell me that he was the man—he said that he had given a person into custody whom he called Flash Harry , and he pre sumed he was the man from the description I had given, and wanted me to go and see him—I had not seen either of the prisoners before to my knowledge.

MR. RYLAND . Q. What change was there in Swilson's dress and appear ance? A. He was so shabby, and dirty, and untirly—when I saw him before, his appearance and manner were like a gentleman.

JAMES SMITH . I am agent to the Maritime Insurance Company, in Fenchurch-street. I know the two prisoners—I think I have known Swilson four or five years, and Marshall from one to two years—I have frequently seen them together—I do not believe that Swilson has been to America for the last year or two; he has not been at all to my knowledge—I have seen him frequently, perhaps two or three times a month, during the last year—it is possible he may have gone out in a very fast steamer, and just come back again, but I do not think he could have done it; it is barely possible; I am only speaking from recollection.

Crss-examined. Q. You are agent to the Maritime Insurance Society? A. Yes; I am a regularly appointed agent by the Company—I am the

London agent; we have very fine offices at No. 113, Fencburch-street; my office is there, and the office of the Company—the Company rents it—it is a regularly chartered Company—they gave me a certain salary, fifty guineas a year, and ten per cent, commission on all policies—the salary is simply for expenses—I have not been to Liverpool or Manchester since June or July last—I resided at Liverpool many years—I have been a good deal at Man chester—I have not been a good deal before the Magistrates there—I have never been in the dock—I have been a witness there, I suppose two, three, or four times; three times within the last four or five years—some of these characters that you defend say I am a sort of amateur policeman—I never receive any money for it, not for my expenses—I have never pocketed my expenses; I have always given them to the officer in the case—I do it on public grounds—I have never made any mistake—it is not true that a woman was wrongly convicted on my evidence at Manchester, and after wards pardoned—I do not recollect any woman being convicted there of picking pockets on my evidence, and being afterwards pardoned, because it was found out that I was wrong—I never heard of it—I will not swear it is not true—I have not given evidence a dozen times at Manchester; perhaps three or four times; it might be five—I will not swear it was not half a dozen; I will swear it was not a dozen—I have given evidence a great many times at Liverpool, perhaps twenty or thirty—I do not know how many times in London; two or three times, perhaps—you may not see these things; perhaps you have not the observation—I lived at Liverpool seven teen years, and have received the thanks of the Magistrates, and of the Judges—I left Liverpool to suit myself; I prefer London in every way as a place for business—I have been before Mr. Maude, the Magistrate, at Man chester; he knows me very well; it is an infamous fabrication to say that Mr. Maude ever told me that he wished not to see me there again, and that the police were much better without my services than with them—he never said anything of the kind; he has thanked me once or twice from the bench—any expenses I might get I hare always given to the officer employed in the case—I have never received any expenses in London; I have not been a witness here—I do not recollect the names of any officers in Liverpool or Manchester to whom I have handed over my expenses.

COURT . Q. How came you to have anything to do with helping the police? A. Merely on public grounds; wherever I can be of any service I do it—I became connected with this case through the captain of the Sea King , who is a particular friend of mine, and, hearing the description of the men, I thought I knew them—Swilson used to live at Liverpool—I did not know Where lie lived at the time this matter occurred—I knew one house that he did reside in, and I sent the officer there.

THOMAS HANSCOMB . ( policeman, F 63). I took Swilson into custody on Friday morning, about 10 o'clock, near Exeter-hall, in the Strand—I told him I took him on suspicion of stealing fifty sovereigns from a gentleman near Cremorne—he said he was innocent of the charge—Mr. Smith gave me information; in consequence of which, I found the prosecutor, and took him to the station to see Swilson, and he identified him as one of the men who had robbed him—he was alone in the dock when he saw him—we gene rally show several prisoners together, but he was the only one we had there then—I took Marshall into custody about 7 o'clock, that same evening, in the Strand—the prosecutor was with me, and pointed him out—I told him the charge—he uaid, "Oh"—I took hold of the cuff of his coat, and he said, "Well, lift my arm up, so that you won't show me up"—I searched him,

and found on him thirteen sovereigns, half a crown, and a counterfeit coin like a half sovereign—we asked the prisoners their addresses at the station, and they refused to give them.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you ever been in a case with Smith before? A. Never—I did not know that I was going to get his fees—I should not take them without reporting it to the Commissioners—if I did I should be dis charged—there is a rule against it—Mr. Smith has not said anything to me about giving me bis fees—Swilson said he was innocent—he said Smith had never seen him before in his life, and that he was setting the prosecutor on to him.

SWILSON — GUILTY .† Aged 36.

MARSHALL — GUILTY .† Aged 38.

Confined Two Years .

NEW COURT .— Monday, May 12 th , 1856.

PRESENT —Mr. Ald. FINNIS . and Mr. COMMON SERJEANT .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant and the Third Jury.

496. SAMUEL NEALE and JOHN GRAMPTON , unlawfully obtain ing money by false pretences.

MR. METCALFE . conducted the Prosecution.

( No evidence was offered against NEALE .)

NOT GUILTY .

THOMAS JAMES STRONG . I am a cow keeper, and live in West-street, Hackney. Neale was in my service—I was in the habit of sending him to the distiller's for grains in my cart—he was to bring home to me three quarters, and to leave two quarters at Mrs. Eagle's—there were throe quar ters thrown into the cart, a board was laid over them, and two quarters were thrown on the top—on 14th March I gave him 25 s . to get five quarters of grains, and he was to leave two quarters at Mrs. Eagle's—the cart would only hold five quarters.

Cross-examined by MR. ROBINSON . Q. Would it not hold five quarters and a half? A. It would not hold six quarters—I never tried whether it would hold five quarters and a half—I did not give him any direction as to what he was to leave at Mrs. Eagle's—he would leave what she wanted—he did not give me any written memorandum—he paid me for two quarters as left with Mrs. Eagle.

MARY O'BRIEN . I am the wife of Michael O'Brien. I am the daughter of Mrs. Eagle, who is a cow keeper, at Hackney—Crampton was her foreman—his duty was to receive grains, and tread them in—I paid the money to Neale—sometimes Crampton came and sometimes Neale, and said that the grains were come—they were paid for one week under the other—on 14th March three quarters were charged to me by a written memorandum, which was brought to me by Neale—I paid on 19th for those delivered on 14th—he ought to have brought the memorandum from Mr. Strong—I took it from Neale, and paid him the money—this is it, "3 quarters of grains, draw from Mr. Strong, 19 s . 2 d ."—Crampton was in the yard at the time they were delivered—I asked him bow many grains there were—he said, "Three quarters"—I thought there were not so many—I said there was a very short three quarters, and I asked him how many the cart would hold—he said six quarters.

Cross-examined. Q. Mrs. Eagle is a very old person? A. Yes—my husband does not manage the business, he is away altogether; I do what I can, as I always did—Crampton had been in the service I dare say tea years—my husband had nothing to do with the business—he was out of employ at that time, but since that he has got some employment at the wharves in East Smithfield—he went on errands for my mother, but he had nothing to do in the yard—I know Crampton cannot write—I have paid him one week under another, and sometimes my mother has.

THOMAS HORNER . I am potman at the Three Colts, in Grove-street, Hackney, close by Mrs. Eagle's. I saw Mr. Strong's cart on 19th March, and Neale with it—he asked me if I had seen Crampton—I said, "Yes"—he told me to tell him he wanted to see him—I went and delivered the message to Crampton—he said he could not come down, he had better see the old lady—he gave me this ticket to give to Neale—I gave it to Neale—the cart was at that time at the public house with grains in it—after I gave Neale the ticket, he took the cart down to the yard, and delivered the grains—after that Neale came back with the cart which had some grains in it, and he told me to take a pot of beer round to Crampton, which I did—I did not take it the usual way, but another way, a back way, because of Mr. O'Brien—Crampton told me that when his gave me the ticket—that was on the 19th, the time before the last that the cart came—I saw Neale with the cart, and he and Crampton came into the tap room after the grains had been delivered—that was four or five days before the 19th—they used to settle for the beer: they had—sometimes it would, be St.;, Neale paid for it.

Cross-examined. Q. Some directions were given to you by Crampton on 19th? A. Yea—I never mentioned before about his telling me to go another way—I was not asked that before.

MARY O'BRIEN . re-examined. I never saw Crampton read writing—I asked him how many grains had been left on the 14th, and oa the 19th also.

SAMUEL NEALE . ( the prisoner ). I was carman to Mr. Strong; I forget whether I took any grains to Mrs. Eagle's on 14th. March—it is a long time ago—I remember the two last times I went there with grains—I quite entirely forget how many grains I took there the last tine but one—I got five quarters from the distiller's—they wen put into the cart—they were not measured—there was a board dividing them—there were three quarters at the bottom, and two at the top—I delivered those on the top of the board to Mrs. Eagle—no more, as far as I can recollectr—this seems like, the bill I gave Mrs. O'Brien on the last occasion, but I cannot read it—the pot man gave me one on the last occasion, and I gave it to Mrs. O'Brien—I received for three quarters 19 s . 3 d .—Crampton did not, say anything to me about receiving for three quarters at that time—he has sometimes said so—I forget now what it was that Crampton said to ma—after I had paid 12 s . 6 d . to Mr. Strong, I believe the rest of the money was nearly all spent in beer—it might not be all spent that day—I do not recollect that I paid any money to Crampton—no, I did not—I did not, pay him any on the 14th, or on the last day—I am sure I do not know how I came to spend it all in beer with Crampton—I quite forget now what he said to me about the three quarters.

NOT GUILTY .

497. SAMUEL NEALE was again indicted for stealing 14 s .; the moneys of Thomas James Strong ; on which no evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY .

498. JOHN HENNESSY , burglary in the dwelling house of Alexander John Kerr , and stealing 1 dressing case, the goods of Samuel Goodfellow ; and 1 key and 1 work box; the goods of Mary Wilkinson .

MARY WILKINSON . I am in the service of Mr. Alexander John Kerr, No. 67, Grosvenor-street, Grosvenor-square. On Sunday evening, 13th April, I was in my mistress's room on the second floor, at a quarter past 9 o'clock—I heard footsteps in the room above—I took the candle, and ran up stairs to the attic, and as I entered the door I could see the prisoner get ting out of the window—I saw his face, and he spoke to me—he got out of the window down into the gutter—I believe there is a communication with the next house by means of that gutter—the same person came in again—my candle was gone out then—he came in half way, and took a work box of my own—when my candle was gone out there was merely the light of the window—it was moonlight—the prisoner was brought into the house again in about ten minutes—the window was quite shut down about 2 o'clock, it was not fastened.

Prisoner. When she was before the Magistrate, she said she could not swear to my features. Witness. I said so, but I could to his voice, and to his general appearance.

COURT . Q. Could you hear this sound above before you went up at a quarter past 9 o'clock—I heard footsteps before I went into my mistreat room—the persons might have got in before 9 o'clock.

HENRY MORRIS . I am in the service of Mr. Colster. I was in Grosve nor-street on Sunday evening, 13th April; I heard an alarm—I saw the prisoner coming down a ladder, from the top of a house—I believe it was No. 64, three doors from the prosecutor's—I laid hold of him—he said, "For God's sake let me go"—I gave him in charge—he said he had done nothing.

JOHN SHEPHERD . ( policeman, C 116). I heard a cry of "Police!" about a quarter before 10 o'clock that night—I ran to No. 67, Grosvenor-street—the prisoner was given into my custody—I found on him a piece of candle, some lucifers, a knife, and two keys—I went up Mr. Kerr's house, and found a bar had been removed from the attic window.

MARY WILKINSON . re-examined. One of these keys found on the prisoner is my mistress's—it was safe in the room that afternoon.

Prisoner's Defence. I was coming down Grosvenor-street; I heard screams of "Murder!" I saw some person on the top of the house; I went up the ladder to the top; when I got a little way I could not get any far ther, I picked up the matches and keys, and came down, and this man stopped me; this woman said two or three different things, first, she could not swear to me, and then she could; I hope you will look into the case; no pro perty was found on me; I was seen on a house three doors off.

GUILTY .

The prisoner was further charged with having been before convicted.

WALTER HOLMES . ( policeman, F 50). I produce a certificate of the prisoner's former conviction—( read: "Westminster Sessions, Dec. , 1854; George Wiltiams, convicted of larceny, after a previous conviction, and confined six months" )—the prisoner is the person.

GUILTY .** Aged 17.— Four Years Penal Servitude.

499. THOMAS TAYLOR , stealing 2 dead salmon, value 15 s .; the goods of the Great Northern Railway Company , his masters.

MR. COOPER . conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM SMITH . ( City policeman , 572). At a little past 6 o'clock, in the

morning, on 1st May, I saw a van belonging to the Great Northern Rail way Company, in King William-street—the prisoner was in that van in a stooping position, which induced me to watch him—I saw him take out of his pocket, under his waistcoat, this hammer ( producing it )—he next proceeded to prise up the lid of the top box—there were two boxes—after he had raised the lid and released the nails, he lifted the lid up and took a salmon out, and placed it under some straw—he lifted the lid of the same box again and took another salmon, and secreted it in the same place—after" he had done that he nailed the lid down again with this hammer—he then got down and got on the driving box, apparently going to drive off—I told him I wanted him, and he must come down—he said, "I am going to deliver these goods at the South Eastern Railway station, and must go"—I said, "Yon must go with me; I must deliver you and the goods at the police station"—he got down, and I said, "How about these fish?"—he said, "For God's sake, don't say anything about it; if you do I am a ruined man"—after some little time I got the assistance of a brother officer to take charge of the van, and I took the prisoner—in going along, he said, "For God's sake, take no notice of it; I will give you a sovereign or anything"—I said if he would give me 100 l . I could not do it—in going along, he said, "I will give you 5 l ., I will give you anything in the world"—he was taken to the station, and while the charge was being booked, he took this hammer out of his pocket under his waistcoat, and said, "This is what I opened the box with"—I found the salmon secreted in the straw under the tarpaulin.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON . Q. Where were they secreted? A. In the middle of the van—there were some baskets of fish in the van which were to be delivered, according to the address—there was straw in the body of the van—there was nothing done to the other box—the first I saw was, the prisoner was in a stooping position, that attracted my attention—he was before me—I could see his face and the box—I did not Intend that he should see me—I got in a doorway—I will swear he could not see me—I examined the box at the station—I found the lid closely nailed down—I could not swear whether it was an old lid—the prisoner said the nails were loose; the lid was old, and the fish were coming out—he said he would give me a pound, a sovereign; nay, he would give me 5 l ., if I would not take him to the station—he said, "I shall be a ruined man; I hare a wife and six chil dren; I will give you 5 l ."

HILTON JOHNSON . I am a porter at the Great Northern Railway. On 1st May, the prisoner drove a van from there—I checked the goods that he took out that morning—he took three boxes of salmon—they were in a good state when he left the station—they were for Boulogne.

Q. I believe the drivers take hammers and nails with them, in case it should be necessary in the passage of the goods to use them? A. I never knew it—I do not know that it is done—I do not know that the lids some times get loose, and ttfe nails come out on the way—they are always well examined before they leave—it might be the case that the boxes might get loose and they might repair them at the instant, but I do not know it.

HECTOR CAHEROH . I am a van boy in the employ of the Great Northern Railway. Between 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning, on 1st May, I saw the van which the prisoner drove—amongst the goods were three salmon boxes—I noticed that the lid of one was a little loose—it was open about half an inch when he left the station—they were to be taken to the South Eastern Railway—the Van stopped at London-bridge, and the prisoner told me to go down to the market to see whether there was any ice—I went and was

away about ten minutes—when I came back I missed the prisoner—I went towards the South Eastern Railway, and as I was going over the bridge, a man told me he was gone to the station—I went to Seething-lane station—I found the van there—I looked round, and the boxes were all nailed down.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you know that drivers of vans take hammers and nails with them? A. I never heard of it—I once saw a lid come off at the South Western Railway, and the prisoner sent me for a stone to drive the nails in—I have not seen that he has carried a hammer and nails since that—I think this box had been used several times before—the lid that came off before might be with the jolting of the van—we were going to deliver this van at the South Eastern Railway—nothing happened to the other boxes—I do not recollect the prisoner saying that Mr. Phillips, a fishmonger, had desired him to see if there was any ice—I went down to Billingsgate market—I have seen packages open at the Great Northern Railway station, and the prisoner has sent me for a hammer to knock them down—I think it was of the smaller box that the lid was loose—to the best of my recollection, the smaller box was on the top.

( The prisoner received a good character. ) GUILTY . Aged 41.— Recom mended to mercy by the Jury.— Confined Four Months .

Fourth Jury.

500. THOMAS NASH , stealing 1 counterpane, 2 sheets, 1 towel, and 1 pillow case; the goods of Joyce Brown : to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 17.— Confined Twelve Months .

( The policeman stated there were twelve or fifteen other cases against him. )

501. HENRY NASH , stealing 1 wrapper and 228 yards of cotton sheeting; the goods of Joseph Hornby Baxendale and others.

MR. PLATT . conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM TURNER . ( City policeman , 449). About 10 o'clock in the morn ing, on 25th April, I saw the prisoner turn out of Cheapside into Lawrence-lane—he was carrying this bale of goods in an awkward manner—I followed him to Basinghall-street, and he put the bale down in a doorway—I went to him, and said, "Where did you get that bale from?" he said, "From Cheapside"—I said, "From what house there?" he said, "From no house; I saw a man in the street with a velvet coat on, he asked me to take it to London-wall, to the Grand Junction booking office, he said he would give me a pot of beer to carry it"—he said he knew the man by sight, but he did not know his name.

Cross-examined by MR. PAYNE . Q. Did he not ask you to go with him to where the man was? A. Yes—he did not ask me to leave the goods in care of another policeman, who was there—I said, "It is no use going to the booking office; it is an old tale, it won't do for me."

JAMES KNIGHT . I am warehouseman to Messrs. Grant, in Cheapside. This bale of goods was consigned to our house—it contains five pieces of cotton sheeting—the value of them is 6 l . 9 s . 7 d .—I produce the invoice which contains the number which corresponds with the number on the bale and the number on the goods—there were fourteen bales delivered, and this one was not.

ALFRED IREDALE . I am book keeper to Joseph Hornby Baxendale and others, at Camden-town station. On the morning of 25th April, I assisted in loading the van at the station—there were fifteen packages addressed to

Messrs. Grant, and this was one of them—there is a delivery book, but I did not bring it—the mark on this bale is the same as the mark on the other packages—I saw this safe in St. Martin's-le-Grand when I went into Hanson Smith's for a few minutes—I delivered goods there, and at several other places—I was there between 9 and 10 o'clock—I went into those places to get my book signed—when I got to Messrs. Grant's, I counted the goods, and missed one bale—as far as I know, this is the bale, by the mark, and size, and everything—I cannot say that I saw the prisoner at all.

Cross-examined. Q. How many go with a van? A. Two went on that occasion—it was supposed to be the duty of the other man to watch the van while I went in to get my book signed—I cannot tell where he was—he is not here.

COURT . Q. How was the man dressed who went with you? A. He had a cord jacket on, not a velvet one.

( The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate fang read, was, that he way employed by a man to carry the parcel to the booking office. )

NOT GUILTY .

502. JAMES GOURD , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwell ing house of Edward Ashley , and stealing 1 clock, 2 table covers, 1 bird cage, and other goods, value 4 l . 10 s .; his property.

MR. CAARTEEN . conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN COX . ( policeman, N 369). I met the prisoner, about a quarter before 6 o'clock in the morning, on 11th April, at the top of Canonbury-street, Lower-road, Islington—he was carrying a birdcage with two birds in it—I followed him as far as Queen-street, about 200 or 300 yards, stopped him, and asked where he brought the birdcage from—he said, "If you win come with me, I will show you"—I went with him about two yards, when he dropped the cage at my feet, and ran away—I pursued him about a dozen yards, when he turned round, drew a knife from his pocket, and said, "You b—, if you come nigh me, you will have it"—he then con tinued running till I stopped him again, about a dozen yards further—before I secured him he turned round several times, and attempted to stab me time after time—at the corner of George-street he took two tablecloths from his waistcoat—he threw one on a wall, with intent to throw it into a garden, and the other he threw in the middle of the road—he then ran about fifty yards further—he then dropped the knife, and I secured him—another policeman came to my assistance, and we searched the prisoner, and found this piece of ribbon in his waistcoat pocket—I got one of the table-cloths—a butcher came by, and took one, and ran away with it—I have not the least doubt that the prisoner is the man I saw with the birdcage—I never lost sight of him.

Cross-examined by MR. PAYNE . Q. How far is the place where you saw him with the birdcage, from where he was taken? A. About half a mile—when he threw the cloths away, he buttoned up his clothes, and said, "Now come on," and he ran some distance, and dropped the knife, and I took him—it was fifty or sixty yards from where the things were thrown down to where he was taken—I did not lose sight of him till I took him—Atkins saw the whole of it—I never saw Atkins before—I believe he has been a witness in one case before—he is not an amateur policeman.

JABEZ ATKINS . I live in New Norfolk-street, and am a cowman. I was in Queen-street about a quarter past 6 o'clock in the morning on 11th April—I saw the prisoner in Lower Queen-street, carrying a birdcage under his arm—I saw Cox go up to him—the prisoner put the cage dow

at his feet, and ran away—Cox ran after him—I joined in the pursuit—the prisoner was stopped at the end of George-street—before he was stopped I saw he had a knife in his hand, and he kept running at the policeman—the policeman sprang his rattle—I went towards the prisoner, and he said, "What the b—hell do you want P—he had part of a brick in his hand—I saw these tablecloths up above his waistcoat, and he threw one on the wall at Mr. Fowler's, the corner of Rotherfield-street, and I saw another tablecloth lying at the corner of Halliford-street, by which the prisoner ran—I left Cox before the prisoner was taken—I saw him taken into custody when I returned—the sergeant was running along with me.

Cross-examined. Q. When did you first see the prisoner? A. When I was putting the horse to the cart—I had seen the policeman on the same beat for about two months before—I am quite sure the prisoner is the man who had the birdcage—he took the cloths out of his waistcoat in George-street—one he threw on the wall—I went away, and got assistance—I am quite sure the man I saw throw the things away was the same man I after wards saw in custody.

EDWARD ASHLEY . I live at No. 4, Clifton-villas, Grange-road, about three minutes' walk from the top of Canonbury-street. On Thursday night, 10th April, I went to bed, a few minutes alter 10 o'clock—the window of the dining room was not closed within half an inch—the servant had had the sash down in the day, and we could not get it up—the door of the dining room was locked outside—I was alarmed about hall past 6 o'clock next morning—I went into the dining room, and found the window open wide, and the things in great confusion—some boxes, the cheffonier, and other things, were broken open—there had been two cages there, which had one bird in each; one cage was left, but the bird had been taken out of it, and put into the cage which was missing—that cage was afterwards shown to me, it was mine, and the birds, which had been in my room—I missed two tablecloths, this is one of them—on the Thursday night this was with the other, folded up, and put on a chair in the dining room—I can identify this piece of blue silk, it was in my wife's workbox the night before—my house is in the parish of St. Mary, Islington.

Cross-examined. Q. How can you venture to swear to a bit of silk in your wife's workbox? A. On the afternoon before I was very unwell, lying on the sofa, and my little girl was unpicking this from another piece—I have fitted it, to see that it corresponds—I am a lock manufacturer by business—I mean to say that this was in my wife's box—I have not had this compared with the article it was upon, but I did it in my eye.

COURT . Q. How was the dining room door in the morning? A. It was locked, in the same state as it was the night before—it had not been interfered with.

GUILTY . of stealing only. Aged 21.— Confined Twelve Months .

503. JOHN QUAID and PETER PETERS , unlawfully assaulting Henry Ginn , a constable, in the execution of his office.

MESSRS. RYLAND . and LOCKE . conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN FREEMAN VALLER . I am a warehouseman, and live in Poors terrace, Bath-street, City-road; I am in the employment of Mr. Cowan, a stationer. On 10th March, between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening, I was standing on Finsbury-pavement, filling my pipe with tobacco—while I was doing that, Peters put his hand round, and struck me on the side of the head—I asked him what he did that for, and Quaid came and hit me on the nose, and knocked

me into the doorway of a public house—he gave me a black eye—I got up and collared Quaid, and said I would hold him till a policeman came—Quaid threw me, but I still held him—Peters came up, and they both punched and kicked me while I was on the ground—I never saw them before—they were not intoxicated—they might have had a trifle to drink, but nothing but what they were capable of taking care of themselves—I dare say there were fifty or sixty persons round me; and some one, I cannot say who it was, pulled Peters off me—I cannot say how long they were beating me about; it seemed a long time to me—they went off, and I followed them—they said they would serve me a great deal worse—I saw the policeman on the oppo site side—I went and spoke to him, and he came across the road with me—the prisoners were going with the crowd; I should think there were 300 persons—I gave charge of the prisoners—I was bleeding very much from the nose, and some one snatched my handkerchief out of my hand—when I gave charge of Peters, just at the time the policeman collared him, Peters knocked me down, and he began kicking the policeman—Quaid said that he should not take his partner to the station—Quaid was holding the police man by the collar, and Peters was kicking him—they did that for a long time—I do not know whether they got him down—he got his staff out, and Peters tried to take his staff from him—the policeman was very much hurt—I did not see the prisoners taken to the station, I was obliged to leave; I was so hurt and kicked about that I could not get along so fast as they did—I was taken to the station, and from there to the hospital—I was an out patient for three weeks—I made a charge against the prisoners, and they were looked up, and I was taken to the hospital—I had a black eye—the bridge of my nose was very much bruised, and my face all over blood—before I was struck I had not said a word to the prisoners—I was standing on the pavement, filling my pipe—I was perfectly sober—I had just left work.

Cross-examined by MR. PLATT . Q. They were quite strangers to yon? A. Yes—some person pulled Peters off me—Quaid had got hold of ins then—Peters came up, put his hand round my neck, and slapped me on the face, ai a drunken man would—it appeared to me that this was done by way of a joke—on that I called him a nasty, a—humbug—he did not say, "I could not help it"—they were coming straight along; they were not stag-gering—I was filling my pipe—the tobacco box was not knocked out of my hand—when I had called Peters what I did, Quaid knocked me down—I did not go after them before the blows were struck—Quaid came back, and struck me on the nose—I collared Quaid after that—no nght took place—nothing but the blow on the nose was given me in answer to she language used by me—all the ill usage I got was before I went to the policeman, except one kick on the leg—I do not know where Ginn was when the blows were given to me—the blows were all over before I went to the policeman—I went to him, and said, "Here are two chaps have been insulting me, and kicking me about"—he came across the road, and asked me which they were—I could not get at the prisoners, because the crowd was so great—I pointed to them, and said, "Those are the persons"—he did not refuse to take them because he had not seen the assault—I did not look at Peters' shoes that night, I saw them afterwards at the station: they appear to lace up in front, such as costennongers wear, they were tipped, or hob nailed.

HENRY GINN . ( City policeman , 166). On Monday evening, 10th March, between 7 and 8 o'clock, I was on duty in Moorgate-street, on the left hand

side, going towards the Bank—I saw a great many respectable persons on the opposite side, and very likely some who were not respectable—the last witness came to me—I had not known him before—he complained of being ill used, and he appeared as if he had been ill used—he had blood on his face—I went across with him, and he pointed out the two prisoners, and charged them with having assaulted him—in consequence of his making that charge, I endeavoured to take them—one of them, I cannot say which, struck me in the face—I got hold of Peters, and he began kicking my legs—I did not observe his shoes—they were very violent kicks that he gave my legs—I still persevered in endeavouring to take them, and they kept kicking me—some of the people called out, "Get your truncheon"—some gentleman got it out, and gave it to me—it was taken from me—soon after wards I saw Ham—I called him, and soon afterwards two policemen came up—after that the prisoners were taken to the station—it took three or four men to take Peters to the station—I had received a great many kicks and bruises on my legs—I was confined to my bed for five weeks—I have been under the doctor's hands ever since—I have not been able to resume my duty—I have suffered a great deal of pain.

Cross-examined. Q. I suppose you have had a great many kicks before? A. Never—those kicks were very violent—I did not see either of the pri soners assault Valler—I did not refuse to take the prisoner on his state-ment—I asked him whether he meant to give them in charge, and he said, "Yes," and immediately one of them gave me a blow on the face—I do not generally say, "I won't take them without I see the assault committed"—I very often do refuse—I was induced to take these prisoners became Valler had blood on his face—the prisoners had been drinking—I did not say anything to them before I put my hand on Peters—I did not say why I took them—there were several respectable men went to the station, and said that they had seen the witness assaulted—I had not struck the prisoner before these kicks took place; I gave them a slight touch with my staff, it did touch them, I believe, but it did not take effect, the staff dropped from my hand—I went to strike him on the side of the head—some one said, "Take your truncheon," but Peters was kicking me all the time—I have no recollection of Quaid kicking me at all—I do not believe he did kick me.

COURT . Q. Was Quaid holding you? A. He was holding Peters, to try to get him away from me, that I should not take him.

ABRAHAM HAM . I am beadle of St. Stephen's, Coleman-street, and lire in Little Bell-alley. On 10th March, about a quarter past 7 o'clock in the evening, I was crossing Moorgate-street, and saw a large crowd of persons—I crossed to see the cause, and saw Ginn attempting to take the two prisoners—they were struggling with him, and Peters was kicking him—I took Quaid by the collar, and I said if he had done no harm he could not object to go to the station—he took Ginn by the collar—I took hold of Quaid, and kept him at arm's length from Peters—I saw Ginn with his staff, and saw him strike Peters a slight blow on the side of the head—Peters was kicking him very violently at the time, and Ginn called to me, "He has got my truncheon," and I saw it in Peters's hand—Peters said, "It is mine"—I seized Peters by the right wrist, and prevented him from using it, while I had Quaid by the collar—Ginn was nearly exhausted—I saw Peters taken to the station—I went with him—there were four to take him—I got a severe kick on my hand—when at the station I examined Peters's shoes—they were tipped at the heels, and had hobnails at the front, enough to kill a man with a kick.

Cross-examined. Q. Were the prisoners drunk? A. Quaid was not very drunk, Peters was rather drunk, but he was sober enough to say, "It is mine," when he had got the staff.

GEORGE TAYLOR . I am a waterman at the cab stand in Moorgate-street. I was there on 10th March, in the evening—I saw the prisoners coming towards Moorgate-street, and Valler was standing on the pavement—Peters put his hand round his neck, and slapped his face—Valler came I beck to speak to them, and Quaid shoved Peters on one side, and struck Valler—there was a struggle, and they both fell on the pavement—I did not see much more—I saw Peters interfere, and they all went on the pave ment, and one of the bystanders pulled Peters from him.

JOHN MILLER . ( City policeman , 99). I was in Moorgate-street, and saw Ginn struggling with the two prisoners—I took Quaid into custody—he kicked me a violent kick on the leg immediately I laid hold of him—we struggled violently together, and got on the pavement; he got up again—I got assistance and got him to the station—both the prisoners were very violent indeed.

EDWARD MITCHELL . ( City policeman , 126). I was called to assist Ginn—he was very much exhausted, and had lost his hat in the struggle—I assisted in taking Peters—he was very violent indeed, I had to strap his legs with my belt, and while doing so he kicked me on the head—it took four men to take him.

CHARLES SWALET SMITH . I am assistant to Mr. Child, the surgeon to the police. I first saw Ginn on the night that this occurred, he was in bed, and his legs were in a very inflamed state—he had been kicked very much about the shins, and was suffering acute pain, so much so that he could not bear the clothes on his legs—the skin was off in several parts—he has been prevented from going on duty till now, and will be for some time.

( The prisoners received good characters. )

QUAID — GUILTY . Aged 19.— Confined Four Months .

PETERS — GUILTY . Aged 24.— Confined Seven Months .

OLD COURT .— Tuesday, May 13 th , 1856.

PRESENT —Mr. Ald. HUMPHERY .; Mr. Ald. FARHCOMB .; Mr. RECORDER .; and Mr. Ald. WIRE .

Before Mr. Recorder and the Second Jury.

504. RICHARD REYNOLDS , stealing on 1st April , 1 lens, value 16 l .; the goods of George Herbert Watkins , his master; also , 2 lenses, value 3 l . 15 s ., of George Fenton , his master; also , obtaining 2 lenses, value 30 l ., from Fallow Home , by false pretences: to all which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 21.— Judgment Respited.

505. HENRY MITCHELL , feloniously being at large before the expi ration of his sentence: to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 23.— Transported for Fourteen Years .

506. JOHN FORD and WILLIAM TAYLOR , stealing 1 ring and 2 lockets, value 15 l .; the goods of Benjamin Worthy Home , and another, the masters of Ford.

MR. BALLANTINE . conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN DEATH . I am assistant to Mr. William Mott, silversmith, of Cheap side. On 17th April, I packed up a diamond ring, and two small lockets, in a wooden box, wrapped the box in two brown papers, sealed it at both ends, and addressed it to Mrs. Rendall, Pier-terrace, Ryde, Isle of Wight—I I gave the parcel to William Griffiths—they were worth about 14 l .; the lockets had been repaired, and the ring remounted.

WILLIAM GRIFFITHS . I am in Mr. Mott's employment. On 17th April I took the parcel delivered to me by Death, to the Cross Keys, and left it there in the booking office.

GEORGE HIBBITT . I am porter at the Cross Keys. I received a parcel from Griffiths, and laid it with other parcels in the place intended for the Southampton Railway—I never saw it again.

Ford. Q. How many parcels did Howard have that night; what num ber did he make? A. I cannot say—Howard is in the employ of the Southampton Railway Company, and comes to the office for the parcels—he came for them on that evening—I cannot say how many he had that even ing, there is a book in which they are entered; it is not here, it is at the office; it is kept by Mr. Underdown.

THOMAS HOWARD . I took the parcels from the Cross Keys on 17th—I took forty-six parcels—I took them to the South Western Railway, Water-loo-road.

Ford. Q. How many parcels did you make that night when you left the office? A. I told Mr. Underdown that I had forty-three from over the counter, and three on this side the counter, making forty-six—Mr. Under down said I ought to have had forty-seven; forty-four from the counter, and three boxes on this side the counter.

MR. BALLANTINE . Q. Are you quite sure you only took forty-six? A. Forty-six—Mr. Underdown called my attention at the time to the fact that there ought to have been forty-seven.

COURT . Q. What did you say? A. I said I had but forty-six, but I could not count them there, as I had intermixed them with the other par-cels from the Swan with Two Necks—it was a very busy night with us—I took them up two or three at the time—I keep account of them—I do not enter them in any book.

CHARLES UNDERDOWN . I am book keeper to Benjamin Worthy Horne and another, at the Cross Keys, Cheapside. They are carriers in connection with the railway—Ford was in their employment as a porter—his duty wai to sleep in the office nightly, and to assist generally throughout the day—Taylor was a sort of stable man, not in the employment of the firm, but assisting the foreman in the yard—when parcels are delivered at our office for the purpose of being transmitted by rail, they are placed in different partitions allotted to certain lines of railway—those partitions are not on the counter, but at the further end of the office, not open to persons coming to the office; they would be open to a man in Ford's position, and to the servants there—the compartment under the counter was for the Eastern Counties' parcels—forty-seven parcels ought to have gone by Howard on the 17th April; he only collects for the South Western—on the following day he called to say that he was a parcel short, and on the second day Mr. Mott's assistant called, and then I learned what the parcel was—it was known to be missing the next day when Howard called, but I made it officially known to all the persons in the office on the Saturday afternoon, including Ford—I mentioned that it contained a ring—I do not think I mentioned the lockets—I am certain Ford was present.

Ford. Q. When Howard had his bill who gave him the answer? you or Mr. Pollard? A. Mr. Pollard, to the best of my belief; he ia my junior clerk—I cannot say how many parcels Howard said he had; Mr. Pollard told me next morning that he understood Howard to make forty-seven—I was busy at the time, and did not notice; Mr. Pollard made the entry in the book—they are called out by one of the porters, Sidey was the porter who called them out that day—he is at the office.

SAMUEL EVANS . ( City policeman , 459). On Monday, 21st April, I went with Legg to the Cross Keys, in Wood-street—I found Ford standing at the door of the booking office—I was in plain clothes—I went with him into the office, told him I was a police officer, and said, "I suppose you are aware of the loss of a parcel that was to be sent to the Isle of Wight?"—he said, "I have heard of it, but I know nothing about it"—I said, "It contained a diamond ring and a gold locket"—he said, "I have not seen it"—I said, "Have you not had a diamond ring in your possession within these last few days?"—he replied, "No"—I said, "Have you not given a diamond ring to a person I to dispose of within the last few days?"—he said, "No"—I said, "Recollect yourself," and after a pause, I said, "Am I to understand that you know nothing whatever about a diamond ring and a gold locket?"—he said, "I know nothing whatever about it"—I waited in the office, and after a time Taylor came in—I told him I was a police officer, and said, "Have you not been trying to dispose of a diamond ring?"—he said, "Yes"—(Ford was present and heard what passed)—I said, "Have you got it in your posses sion?"—he said, "Yes," and produced it—this is it—I said, "Who gave you this ring?"—he said, "A friend"—I told him look round, and see if that friend was present—he then said, "Yes, Ford gave it me"—Ford made no remark—Taylor answered all the questions very readily.

WILLIAM JAMES MITCHELL . ( City police inspector ). In consequence of being sent for by Ford, I went to the cell in which he was confined—he said he wished to make a statement to me—I told him that whatever statement he made must be entirely voluntary, and that I should make use of it, and asked if he had well considered the matter—he said he wished to give me the full particulars—he said that when he left the office at about 20 minutes after 8 o'clock on the 17th, in passing up Wood-street, he kicked his toe against a small parcel, that he picked it up and put it into his pocket, with out examining the contents; that upon his return to the office about a quarter past 9 o'clock he examined the parcel, and found it to contain a diamond ring, and two gold lockets; that he said nothing about it to any one until the Saturday, and he then asked Taylor if he could dispose of it for him; he said that Mr. Mott appeared very anxious to have the lockets, and he could tell me where they were concealed, they were his between the rafters and the tiles in the hay loft of the stable in Wood-street—I sent an officer there—Ford also said that on the night in question he had counted, out forty-seven parcels, and he was not aware that this was one of them, because there was no mark on it, and all their parcels were numbered.

GEORGE LEGG . ( City policeman , 440). In consequence of directions from Mr. Mitchell, I went to a loft over the stable in the Cross Keys yard, and between the rafters and the tiles I found these two lockets (produced)—this book was found on Ford by Evans at the station.

CHARLES UNDERDOWN . re-examined. All the parcels are numbered when they are called out—it was Sidey's duty to number them that night—if there was a number on, it would show at once that it belonged to the office—the box has never been traced—I know Ford's writing—this "Rendall, Ryde," in this book is his.

( MR. BALLANTINE . here withdrew from the case as to Taylor, who was acquitted. )

WILLIAM TAYLOR . ( the prisoner ). I was employed jobbing about the yard—I received this diamond ring from Ford on Monday—he told me that a female gave it to him whom be knew, in York-street, by Astley's theatre that a gentleman had made it a present to her, and that she gave it to him—I made this same statement before the Magistrate.

JOHN DEATH . re-examined. This is the ring, and these are the lockets—one of Mr. Mott's shop cards was inside the paper.

JOHN POLLARD . I asked Howard how many parcels he had on this night, and he said forty-four, and three boxes on the other side made forty-seven—I booked the parcels that afternoon, Sidey called them over—nothing was said that night about there being one less than the number, but next morn ing Howard called and said he was one short for Ryde, a small one—I asked him how he knew it was a small one, and when I referred to the book I found it was "Carriage paid, 1 s .,"so be knew it must have been under seven pounds.

THOMAS HOWARD . re-examined. have heard what Mr. Pollard has said, it is false—I had forty-three parcels from the counter—I did not tell him I had forty-four—I thought it was Mr. Underdown who said I ought to have forty-four; I understood it was his voice over the counter, but we were so busy I could not see.

Ford's Defence. On leaving the office in Wood-street, at 20 minutes past 8 o'clock on the evening of 17th April, about thirty yards from the door, I picked up a small parcel; I could not see the address, as it was completely covered with mud; I put it into my pocket, and on going to the office at 20 minutes past 9 o'clock I opened it, and found it contained a ring and two lockets; I did not hear any inquiry about it till Monday, when a gentleman from Mr. Mott's came to inquire about it; Taylor is perfectly innocent of how I came possessed of it; I am the only party con oerned; I am not guilty of stealing it, but I found it as I say. ( Ford received a good character. )

FORD — GUILTY . Aged 26.— Four Years Penal Servitude.

TAYLOR — NOT GUILTY .

507. JOHN GRIFFITHS , burglariously breaking and entering the dwell ing house of Thomas Tomlinson , and stealing a looking glass, work box, snuff box, and brooch, value 13 s .; his property.

MR. HORRY . conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN CARTY . I am a labourer, and live in the house of Mr. Tomlinson, a fishmonger, No. 71, Lower Thames-street Between 3 and 4 o'clock on. Sunday morning, 20th April, I had occasion to come down stairs to the water closet, and found a man bursting out through the window on to a bench underneath, it—the house stands up a passage, and the window faces the street—I pursued the man, calling "Stop thief!"—I did not see his face, only his back, but I never lost sight of him till I left the constable in pursuit of him and then both the man and the constable got out of my sight—to the best of my belief, the prisoner is the man; he is the man that was brought back—I could not swear to him, because I did not see his face, but he resembles the man in size and dress—I after wards examined the window, it was open, the lower part slides up, two panes of glass were broken, and two nails which fastened down the sash were removed.

Prisoner. Q. What distance were you from where the man jumped out

of the window? A. About one pace—he came out on his hands and knees, which prevented my fleeing his face, and ran down the passage, and I after him.

JOSEPH TOMKINS . ( City policeman , 587). A little before 4 o'clock on Sun day morning, 20th April, I was in Lower Thames-street—I heard the breaking of glass—I went to No. 71, I waited two or three minutes, and saw the prisoner come out of the court—I pursued him along Thames-street—I lost sight of him for about half a minute on Tower-hill, I sprang my rattle, and after I turned the corner of the rails round the Tower ditch, I saw him ia the hands of H 75—he was not half a minute out of my sight—I had seen him during the night, about 1 o'clock, in company with another man, standing very near the court; I watched them away, and they went towards London-bridge—I afterwards saw him again, about 3 o'clock, coming out of Harp-lane into Thames-street, that is about fifty yards from the prosecutor's premises.

Prisoner. Q. Whereabouts were you standing when you say I came I down the court? A. I was about two yards from the court when you ran out—you ran faster than me, or I should have laid hold of you.

WILLIAM STARTIN . ( policeman, H 75). On Sunday morning, 20th April, About a quarter to 4 o'clock, I was in Trinity-square, Tower-hill, and heard the springing of a rattle—I turned, and saw the prisoner running across Tower-hill, towards the Mint, in a direction from Lower Thames-street—I stopped him, he was out of breath—Tomkins came up in about half a minute, and recognised him—I searched him—before I did so, he gave me 6 d . and a lucifer match when I asked what he had got about him.

CHARLES BUTTON . ( City policemen , 569). A little before 4 o'clock on Sunday morning I was on duty in Lower Thames-street, and heard a cry of "Stop thief!"—I went to No. 71, Lower Thames-street, and saw Carty—I picked up this looking glass on a bench under the window—two panes of the lower sash of that window were broken, near the fastening—I found a work box and a snuff box outside—I called Mrs. Tomlinson and her son up, and then examined the room—I found one of the drawers open, and some things that were taken from it, on the window ledge—I found this screw-driver outside in the street, and some lucifer matches about fifty yards from the passage in Thames-street, nearer to Tower-hill—this snuff box, brooch, and pair of tweezers were picked up in Thames-street—I also found a piece of candle in the court—the matches correspond with the one which the prisoner had on him.

THOMAS TOMLINSON . I am a fishmonger, at No. 71, Lower Thames-street, in the parish of St. Dunstan in the East I was not at home on the night in question, my son and my wife were in the house—these articles ( produced ) are mine—I lost a silk handkerchief altogether, from a drawer that was not locked.

THOMAS CHARLES TOMLIKSON . I am the son of the last witness. I went to bed at a quarter to 11 o'clock on 19th April—before doing so I examined the window of the ground floor room—it was fastened with two nails, quite secure—I saw some of these things on the sideboard, in front of the window, and some were in the drawers—the handkerchief that is lost was in a drawer—I saw it there about 8 o'clock on Saturday evening, and also a sixpence in the work box—the street door was not fastened—I locked the room door, and had the key—I found it still locked in the morning.

CHARLES BUTTON . re-excmined. There was no sixpence in the box when I found it.

Prisoner's Defence. On the night of the robbery I went to Drury-lane Theatre, and fell in company with a young man, a sailor, who said he was steward on board a ship; we went to a public house, and met a friend of his, and went to his house, where we remained till about 3 o'clock in the morning; we then came away, and, coming along Drury-lane, there was a disturbance, and I missed the young man; I thought I could meet with him by the Docks or Blackwall, and, crossing Tower-hill, the policeman stopped me; he says I was out of breath, but it was a severe cold I had.

GUILTY . Aged 21.— Confined Twelve Months .

508. ROBERT WATSON , stealing 10 printed books, value 10 l .; the goods of William Daniel Henry Ochme .

MR. DENNY . conducted the Prosecution.

JAMES THOMAS . I am clerk to Messrs. Ochme and Lloyd, solicitors No. 124, Bishopsgate-street; they have also a place of business at Calcutta, On 8th April I was in the back office on the second floor, near 2 o'clock in the day, and heard footsteps crossing the landing; I went on to the landing and saw the prisoner descending the stairs, with a large canvass bag on his shoulder, apparently heavy—I went into the front room, and missed ten volumes of Bittlewood's "Conveyancing Precedents" from the shelves—I immediately pursued the prisoner, and overtook him at the bottom of the second flight of stairs—I called out, "Drop them; I have got you"—he immediately dropped it, and ran off—I pursued him about fifty yards, and, after a considerable struggle, brought him back, sent for a policeman, and gave him into custody—the books were lying on the mat; they were the pro perty of Mr. Ochme, which I had missed—when I brought the prisoner back, he said, "You had better let me go, and go after the other man; he is going up the street"—I saw no other man.

CHARLES BROWN . ( City policeman , 654). The prisoner was given into my custody; I found on him 5 d . in copper, and 6 d . in silver—on taking him to the lock-up, he said, "I was in a public house in Houndsditch, and met a gentleman there, who said he wanted something moved from his office; he took me to the house in question, in Bishopsgate-street, took me to the second floor, into an office, and, pointing to the books in question, he said, 'Take these, and follow me;' I took the books, and followed the gentleman, and when I got down stairs the last witness ran after me and collared me."

( The prisoner, in Ms defence, repeated the statement he had made to the officer. )

GUILTY . Aged 59.— Confined Six Months .

509. THOMAS KEMP and EMMA SAGE , stealing 1 pocket book: to which

KEMP PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 28.— Confined Twelve Months .

MR. RYLAND . offered no evidence against SAGE .— NOT GUILTY .

510. ANN PRICE , stealing 1 shawl; the goods of Sarah Egerton .

MR. PLATT . conducted the Prosecution.

SARAH EGERTON . I am servant at the King's Arms Inn, Uxbridge. On 8th April I had a shawl—I hung it up in the taproom at half past 2 o'clock, and missed it a little before 4—this ( produced ) is it—the prisoner was in the taproom that day for three or four hours, and left about half past 3 o'clock, by the bus.

Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH . Q. Did you know her at all? A. No; I never saw her before that day—I was not in the habit of lending my shawl to any one.

JAMES WESTON . I am assistant to Mr. Davis, a pawnbroker, at Uxbridge. On 8th April, between 3 and 4 o'clock, the prisoner pawned this shawl—she asked 3 s ., and took 1 s .—I had seen her at the shop before—the proeecutrix I afterwards came, and claimed it.

GUILTY . Aged 34.— Confined Two Months .

511. JOHN M'KENLEY , JAMES RANDS , and JOSEPH OAKENFULL , robbery on William Fudge , and stealing 3 l . 10 s .; his moneys.

MR. SLEIGH . conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM FUDGE . I am a carpenter and builder, and live at No. 26, Sale-street, Edgware-road. On Tuesday, 1st April, before 12 o'clock, I went to the Rose and Crown public house, in Burn-street—I remained there until between 3 and 4 o'clock—I went there to see a person on business—I had 3 l . 10 s . Of with me in gold, and 3 s . 6 d . in silver—I am quite positive I had it safe while I was there—I had a portion of some drink there—I was there, I should say, an hour and a half, or more, before I saw any of the prisoners—my friend and I went into the skittle ground, and played—there were various parties there who were acquainted with me—somewhere about 2 o'clock the prisoners came in—they each came in separately—Bands wanted to force me to bet, and I would not—I was going to the bar to get some spirits, when Rands caught me by the collar, and said, "You shan't go, for you owe me a shilling"—the other prisoners were present—I had betted a penny or two with some parties on the ground; I do not know who they were; I did not bet with either of the prisoners that I know of—I had not played with either of them, only with my two friends, Breewood and Henley—when Rands collared me, each of the other prisoners held me in a position that I could scarcely tell what they were about; they threw me across a rail, and held me, whilst one of them got his hand into my left hand pocket, and took out the money—I could not say who it was that rifled my pockets, because I was lying with my back across the rail, and my head down—I felt somebody's hand in my pocket, and they took my money out—I am quite sure that the three prisoners were engaged in holding me down at that time—they then left me, and escaped.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY . Q. Have you been drinking to day? A. have not; I have had a glass of porter; nothing beyond that—on this afternoon I had been drinking, perhaps, for about two hours, not all the time; I was both eating and drinking—I called there to see Breewood on some business that he was transacting for me—I will swear I had not betted or lost a shilling to anybody before this occurred—perhaps I have had two or three glasses of porter to-day, nothing else; I do not believe I have had any ale; I had one glass before I left Paddington—I have had no spirits—I swear that—I had some rum at the public house on the day in question; we had half a pint between three of us; nothing else, except a beet steak.

GEORGE GIBBS . I am a labourer, at No. 28, Praed-street, Paddington. I was at the Rose and Crown on this afternoon, and saw Mr. Fudge there, playing skittles with several persons, in fours—he played with Rands—the other two prisoners were sitting in the ground; I had not seen them with Rands—I saw Fudge attempt to go out of the ground; Rands laid hold of him by the collar, and thrust him back into the skittle ground, and said he owed him a shilling, what he had betted—Fudge said, "I owe you no shilling"—Rands said, "You do"—Fudge said he did not, and Rands backed him into the skittle ground by the collar—the other two prisoners were then in the ground; there were four of them altogether; one has not been taken—Fudge was backed across the bar—M'Kenley laid hold of him by

the throat, and held him down, while the man who is not in custody put his hand into his pocket, and Bands and Oakenfull held him by the legs—I could not see what was taken oat of his pocket—after it was taken, three of the men disappeared—M'Kenley did not go; he never went away from the house.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you hear Fudge challenge Rands to play at skittles? A. No, I was not there when they first began to play—Rands challenged Fudge to play—I believe they played three games single handed, for a pint or a quart of porter a game—Rands insisted that Fudge owed him 1 s .—I am able to say he did not owe it him—Rands tried to get him to bet, but he would not bet, he simply played for beer—I believe Rands is a shoe maker by trade—I did not see him come in with any shoes, or any parcel, I believe he came for a parcel—he got a parcel from the landlord; that was the first thing in the morning when he came in—I had never seen him before—I have seen the other prisoners frequently in the street, not in the skittle ground.

COURT . Q. When did you first give any information about this? A. I did not give any until I was accused of being one of the thieves, that was about half past 10 o'clock that night—I did not know that I was bound to give information—I am no thieftaker, I was in dread, of course—the prosecutor ran away out of the skittle ground after he was robbed, and gave no in formation.

FREDERICK COOK . ( police sergeant, D 1). On Tuesday night, 1st April, in consequence of information from Fudge, about a quarter past 10 o'clock, I went to Whitechapel, and met M'Kenley in Chapel-street, coming from the direction of the Rose and Crown, where the robbery had been com mitted—I followed him, Gibbs came up and said, "That is one of the men"—I then went up to him, and said, "You must go to the station with me"—he said, "What for?"—I said, "For committing a robbery on a person at the Burn's Arms skittle ground"—I thought that was the name of the house at that time—he said, "Who told you I was one of them?"—I said, "You will see that when you get to the station"—I took him there—he was the worse for liquor—the prosecutor had been drinking, but he was perfectly aware of what he was stating, he appeared to be like a man who had been asleep for two or three hours, stupified—on the Wednesday, I went to No. 59, Seymour-place—I found Rands there, in a shoemaker's shop, with his name over the door, he was at work behind the counter—I said, "You must go to the station with me for being concerned in a robbery at the Burn's Arms"—he said, "That is a very unpleasant affair, for I wanted to get these boots home to-night"—on the road to the station he said, "Are they going to make me a witness or a prisoner?"—I said, "I have already made you a prisoner"—I then took him to the station, and fetched the prosecutor and Gibbs, who identified him as one of the party.

Cross-examitied. Q. You found Rands working at hit shop? A. Yes; it is a small shop—there were some children there; he seemed surprised.

SILVESTER THRUSH . ( policeman, D 190). On the Monday after the rob bery, I went in company with sergeant Cook to No. 17, Sadler's-place, London-wall—I saw Oakenfull there, and his brother, standing at the foot of the stairs—Cook told him he must consider himself in custody for being concerned with three others in robbing a man at the Burn's Arms—he said, "That is what I expected"—he was taken to the station and identified by the witnesses.

GEORGE BRIMACOMBE . ( police inspector, D ). When M'Kenley was brought

I to the station, I reduced the charge against him to writing, and read it out to him—I told him he was charged with robbing William Fudge, in the Rose and Crown public house, of 3 l . 10 s . in gold—he said nothing—the pro secutor came to me about half past 4 o'clock on the day of the robbery, and told me he had been robbed, and the men who had robbed him were then at the public house—I immediately sent Hammond, a constable, with him, and he returned in about half an hour, saying they were all gone.

WILLIAM FUDGE . re-examined. At the time this happened, I was in a I state to know what I was about—I went first to the Paddington station, that was a few minutes afterwards, as soon as I could recover myself—they referred me to the station in John-street—I did not call on the landlord or I anybody, to seize the persons who had been robbing me—I could not, I was thrown across the rail, I was in bed for two days—I could not call out; when I got up they were all gone—I hurried off to the nearest police station—I can swear I had my money safe at 1 o'clock in the day—the gold I was in my left pocket and the silver in my right.

---- HAMMOND . ( policeman, D 47). I went with the prosecutor, and Tice, another constable, to the Rose and Crown—he did not point out any one there—I took him into the skittle ground, and he said they were all gone—I saw the landlord, and he said they were all gone—he did not know anything about the robbery till I told him of it—I do not recollect seeing M'Kenley in the house, there were five or six persons in the skittle ground ( The prisoners received good characters. ) NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT .— Tuesday, May 13 th , 1856.

PRESENT —Mr. Ald. HUMPHREY .; Mr. Ald. SIDHEY .; Mr. Ald. FINNIS .; and Mr. COMMON SERJEANT .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant and the Seventh Jury.

512. CHARLES DAVIS , unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin: to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 28.— Confined nine Months .

513. CHARLES JACKSON was indicted for a like offence: to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 30,— Confined Nine Months .

514. GEORGE PUNSHER , alias Gates , feloniously uttering counterfeit coin: having been before convicted: to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 23.— Four Years Penal Servitude.

515. JOHN FITZGERALD , alias Jones , was indicted for a like offence: to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 27.— Four Years Penal Servitude.

516. WILLIAM LEGRAVE , unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. ELLIS . and BODKIN . conducted the Prosecution.

HARRIET KNIGHT . My husband keeps a shop in St. Martin's-lane. On 20th March, between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the prisoner came for a pair of boots—I told him the price was 4 s . 6 d ., and he left—he came back in a short time, chose a pair, and gave me a 5 s . piece—I gave him a sixpence, and put the crown in my pocket—I had no other crown—I went to a public house, and asked for change for it—the barman put it into the tester, and told me it was bad—I brought it back—it had not been out of

my sight at all—on Saturday, the 22nd, the prisoner was pointed out to me in Newport-market, with two others—I went to him, and said that I wanted him to come with me—he said he could not come—I said he had better come to my husband, he knew what I wanted him for—Mr. Benson, who was with me, told him that he knew he was a notorious smasher , and he had better go with me—the prisoner went with me to my husband's shop—my husband said he would have him locked up—the prisoner said he supposed he did not want to have him locked up, and he would pay him the 5 s ., he had not got the money then, but he would leave his coat, and come on the following Monday—he left his coat, and came on the following Mon day, and took it away, and paid the crown—the bad crown was broken up by Mr. Benson—I gave one piece to the policeman, and one piece is lost.

MARY ANN DAY . I am barmaid at the Hand in Hand, in Holborn On 2nd April the prisoner came, about 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon—he asked for 1 1/2 d . worth of shrub and a screw of tobacco—they came to 2 d ., he gave me a shilling, I gave him change, and he left the bar—I put the shilling in the till—there was no other shilling there, only three 4 d . pieces—I had cleared out the till just before—after he was gone, something was said to me, and I looked at the shilling, and it was bad—a customer, Mr. Ridding, went after the prisoner, and brought him back—in trying the shilling Mr. Bidding, had bent it—the prisoner said he was not aware it was bad—a constable came in, and I gave him the shilling—it had not been out of my sight.

WILLIAM BASS . ( policeman, E 154). I went into the Hand in Hand, took the prisoner, and got this shilling from the last witness, and this part of a crown from Mrs. Knight.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am inspector of coin to the Royal Mint. This shilling and part of a crown are both bad.

Prisoners Defence. The witness gave me a sixpence and a 4 d . piece in change; I never saw the 5 s . piece from the first time I passed it.

GUILTY .** Aged 23.— Confined Twelve Months .

517. EDWARD FELLOWS was indicted for a like offence.

MESSRS. ELLIS . and BODKIN . conducted the Prosecution.

ELIZABETH BURTON . I am the wife of Thomas Burton, he keeps an eating house in Bakers-row, Whitechapel. On 24th April the prisoner came, in the afternoon, for 1 d . worth of pudding and a saveloy—they came to 2 d .—he gave me a 2 s . piece; I passed it to my husband, who was stepping from the parlour into the shop.

THOMAS BURTON . I saw the prisoner in my shop—my wife served him, and she gave me a florin, I examined it, and found it was bad—I asked the prisoner where he got it, he said, "By selling things in the street"—I was not satisfied, and sent for a policeman, marked the florin, and gave it him.

Prisoner. You said in your deposition that you were in the shop by the side of your wife. Witness. was just coming from the parlour into the shop—I had only three or four yards to come.

DANIEL SMITH . ( policeman, K 415). The prisoner was given into my custody—I took him to Worship-street on the 24th—there was no other charge against him, and he was discharged on the 25th—he gave the name of George Chapman, but refused to give any address—this is the 2 s . piece.

TRYPHENA MINER . My father is a baker, and lives in High-street, Shad well On 29th April the prisoner came, about 8 o'clock in the evening, for a half-quartern loaf—I served him—it came to 4 d ., he gave me a 2 s . piece,

I gave him 1 s . 8 d .—he went out of the shop, walking fast—I kept the 2 s . piece in my hand—I asked my mother if it was good, she said it was bad—I went and fetched the prisoner back.

JURY . Q. Had you put the florin in the till? A. No, had kept it in my hand.

FRANCIS RUSHTON . ( policeman, K 113). I apprehended the prisoner—I got this 2 s . piece from the last witness—there was only 1 s . 8 d . found on him—he gave the name of Edward Fellows, Brick-lane, Spitalfields.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These are both bad.

Prisoners Defence. On the 24th I sold my rings and bracelets, and went to get the pudding and the saveloy; I put down the 2 s . piece, and it was bad; I was discharged, and was working on the highway; a woman asked me to go and get the loaf; she gave me the florin; I came out, and was looking about for the woman, and the witness came and gave me into custody.

GUILTY . Aged 18.— Confined Nine Months .

518. THOMAS WILLIAMS was indicted for a like offence.

MESSRS. ELLIS . and BODKIN . conducted the Prosecution.

CHARLOTTE ANN WALTON . I keep a greengrocer's shop, at Old Brentford. On the morning of 19th April the prisoner came for a pottle of potatoes—they came to 2 d ., he gave me a shilling—I gave him change, a sixpence and four penny pieces—I said to him, "This it rather a slippery shilling"—he said that it was good—I put the shilling just inside the drawer, but not with the other money—he left, and I tried the shilling directly, and fetched him back—I told him it was bad—he gave me another shilling, and that was bad—I bit them both, and returned them to him—I sent to the station, and gave the prisoner into custody.

EDWARD TALBOT . I was in Mrs. Walton's shop on the 19th—I saw the prisoner there—Mrs. Walton had got a shilling in her hand—she hit it, and said, "This is bad, too"—the prisoner gave her a sixpence—I was present when the prisoner was searched—there were two bad shillings found on him, and 43. or 5 d . in copper.

RICHARD CROUCHER . ( policeman, T 130). I was on duty at Brentford—I followed the prisoner, took him, and found on him these two bad shillings, four penny pieces, two halfpence, two farthings, and one pocket piece—I found him at his own lodging, two doors from the prosecutrix's—he had only lodged there one night.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These are both bad. Prisoner's Defence. I did not know the money was bad.

NOT GUILTY .

519. JOHN JONES was indicted for a like offence.

MESSRS. ELLIS . and BODKIN . conducted the Prosecution.

SARAH MONK . My husband keeps the Fox and Hounds, at Brentford. Last Thursday I saw the prisoner at my bar door—he asked for 1 1/2 d . worth of gin, and gave me a sixpence—I gave him 4 1/2 d . in change, laid the sixpence down on the counter, and gave him the halfpence—he put them into his pocket, and went away—I just put the sixpence into the till, but did not mix it with other money—I took it out again in less than two minutes—I am sure what I took out was the same—it was bad—I laid it on one of the shelves, separate from other money—I marked it, and gave it to him.

SUSANNAH LOGSDELL . My father keeps a public house at Old Brentford. last Thursday the prisoner came, and asked for 1 1/2 d . worth of gin—he gave me a sixpence—I gave him a 4 d . piece and one halfpenny in change—he

drank tlie gin and went away—J put the sixpence into a small box inside the till, where, if I take money of a stranger, I always put it—I put this sixpence into the box, and there was no other money there—a man came in afterwards, and spoke to me—I looked at the sixpence, and gave it after wards to a policeman.

SARAH HARDING . My husband keeps the Prince of Wales, at Old Brentford. The prisoner came, last Thursday, for 1 1/2 d . worth of gin—I served him, he gave me a bad sixpence—I had got the change in my band, but I had not given it to the prisoner—a policeman came in, he took the sixpence from the place where I laid it—I am sure it was the one the prisoner gave me.

WILLIAM CRASKE . ( policeman, T 125). A young man called me, and went into the Prince of Wales last Thursday, about 3 o'clock—I found the prisoner standing at the bar—the last witness told me he had passed a bad sixpence—the sixpence was lying on the counter, and she took it and gave it into my hand—I took the prisoner—I searched him at the station—I found on him 5 1/2 d . in copper and a 4 d . piece—I received these other two sixpences from the other witnesses:

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These three sixpences are all bad, and two of tham are from the same mould.

Prisoner. I did utter the sixpences, but not knowing they were coun terfeit GUILTY . Aged 27.— Confined Nine Months .

520. HENRY TRUEMAN and BENJAMIN HOUGH , stealing 10 cwt. of coals, value 12 s .; the goods of Thomas Freeman , their masters.

MR. ORRIDGE . conducted the Prosecution.

CHARLES CHANNON . I am clerk to Mr. Thomas Freeman, of Blackfrian wharf, Blackfriars—the prisoners were in his employ. On 3rd May I sent them with ten tons of coals to Mr. Wheeler, in Hyde-park-gardens, seven tons first and then three tons—Trueman, the carman, and Hough, his trouncer , left the yard with a waggon, with three tons, about a quarter past 9 o'clock—I saw them go—there were thirty sacks in the waggon, con taining each two cwt, or 224lbs. of coals—from what I heard afterwards the prisoners were given into custody.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE . Q. Did you see the coals put into the waggon? A. I saw them in the waggon when they went out, and I counted the sacks in the waggon—there were ten sacks down the side, and three across, which made thirty—I gave the ticket for that number—Trueman had been with us about two years—during that time he has borne a good character.

ALFRED JAMES GURR . I am butler to Mrs. Wheeler, of Hyde-paik-gardens. On 3rd May some coals were brought to our house—my mistress opened the window, and asked Trueman, the carman, if he had three tons of coals, he said, "Yes"—she asked if he had thirty sacks, he said, "Yes"—my mistress and I watched them, and on shooting two or three sacks, an empty sack turned up—it was taken out by Trueman, and put on the others—in the course of shooting a few more, four more empty sacks turned up, and were put on the others—twenty-five full sacks were shot, and five empty sacks were placed by the side of them—Mrs. Wheeler opened the window, and said, "You have not brought thirty sacks of coals"—Trueman said, "Yes, I have"—she said, "You have not, twenty-five sacks were full, and five were empty"—Hough came into the house afterwards—I told him it was a serious affair, and Mrs. Wheeler would have to go to Mr. Freeman

about it—there were only twenty-five sacks of coals—he said he knew nothing of it—Mrs. Wheeler went down to Mr. Freeman.

Cross-examimd. Q. Did not Hough say, if it were not right, if you would give him the ticket, he would have it made right at the office? A. No, he asked me for the ticket, and I told him I could not give it him, on account of the coals not being the proper quantity.

THOMAS TRIM . ( City policeman , 69). I took Trueman into custody, on Saturday, 3rd May, about half past 3 o'clock in the afternoon.

CHABLES BUCKTHORPE . ( City policeman , 318) I took Hough into custody on Saturday evening, 3rd May—I told him the charge—he said he was not responsible for it, he was servant to the carman.

MR. METCALFE . to ALFRED JAMES GURR . Q. Did Trueman ask you to have the coals weighed? A. That was not said in my hearing—I asked my mistress, and she said she did not hear it—I could not say whether there was a weighing machine in the waggon—my mistress and I were both standing at the window, which was open.

TRUEMAN — GUILTY . Aged 36.— Recommended to mercy by the jury,— Confined Nine Months .

HOUGH — NOT GUILTY .

521. JEAN BEAMONT , stealing 1 porte monnaie and an order for 20 s .; the property of Hannah Helena Baglehole , from her person.

MR. LILLEY . conducted the Prosecution.

HANNAH HELENA BAGLEHOLE . I am a widow, and reside at Keppel-place, Brompton. On 3rd April, about 20 minutes before 3 o'clock in the afternoon, I got into a Royal Blue omnibus in Billiter-street—I was going to Pimlioo—the prisoner got into the omnibus after I was seated—he sat next to me, on my right side—I had my pocket on my right side—the omnibus was crowded—after the prisoner got in I was annoyed by his pressing against me—I endeavoured to get from him, but he still followed me, and pressed against me—he raised up my drees on my right side, and picked my pocket of my purse—I had my purse safe when I got into the omnibus, at the bottom of my pocket—I carried the money to pay for the omnibus in my hand—there was in my purse a Post-office order far 1 l .—after the prisoner had taken up my dress I wished to leave, and I desired a man to stop the omnibus, and the moment I was going to leave, the prisoner had fastened his hand in my pocket, and tore the gathers out of my drew—I said, "You have picked my pocket"—he has a very large hand, and he dropped the purse at the right side—I did not see him throw it down, but he had his hand in a position to cover the purse—I was considerably agitated, and so I am now—the prisoner ran away, I ran after him; he crossed the road, and went between the coaches—the conductor pursued him, and he was taken—he said, "Pray don't give me in charge; look at me, look at me"—I did not wish to give him in charge, but a gentleman desired me to do so, for the benefit of the public—this is my purse, the one I had in my pocket—my son Charles had it all the time he was in Calcutta, and I covered it with a piece of my dress.

Crost-excmmed by MR. BALLANTINE . Q. Are you quite sure that the prisoner put his hand into your pocket? A. Yes, because it was fastened there when I rose up—he looked at me in a particular manner—I did not see him drop the purse.

GEORGE STEER . I am a commercial clerk. I was in the omnibus at the time the prosecutrix was there, 3rd April—I sat opposite the prisoner—I observed his conduct, he seemed to sit very uneasily—a gentleman next to

me drew my attention to him—I observed he was very shuffling, and while I was so noticing him the lady wished to get out, and accused him of picking her pocket—I did not see him drop the purse, but I saw it on the floor of the omnibus where he sat, next to the lady—the prisoner is the man who was there.

THOMAS DELANTLEY . ( City policeman , 493), I was on duty on that day in Cheapside—the prisoner was brought to me by the omnibus conductor, and given into my custody for stealing a purse—I took him to the shop where the lady was; she said, "You villain, you have robbed me"—he said, "Mother, what do you mean?" in broken English or French—she said, "You know that you did"—he seemed to wish her not to give him into custody, but he spoke such bad English I could not understand him.

JAMES QUINN . I am a conductor of a Royal Blue omnibus. On the day the lady got into the omnibus I remember the prisoner coming, but I do not exactly remember the place—it was probably between the Bank and Cheapside—he sat the second on the left hand side of the omnibus—at the bottom of Cheapside the lady called to me to get out—I saw her get up from her seat—she could scarcely get up, she was entangled with something—when she got up she turned round and looked on the seat, and after she set her foot on the step she looked at the bottom of the omnibus—I looked, but I did not see the purse—the lady stepped on the ground, and the pri soner immediately got up, pushed by the lady, and ran out, and at that instant I saw the purse on the floor of the omnibus—I chased the prisoner round St. Paul's Churchyard, and caught him.

GUILTY . Aged 65.— Confined Twelve Months .

( The prisoner was also charged with having been before convicted. )

HENRY ELLIS . I am a conductor of an omnibus. I reside at Turnham green—I produce a certificate of the prisoner's former conviction—( read: "Central Criminal Court, June , 1846, James M'Grath, Convicted of stealing a purse and money of Mary Gurney, from her person; Transported for ten years ")—the prisoner is the man—I was present, and gave evidence against him.

Cross-examined. Q. The prisoner was found at large some time ago, was he not? A. I do not know that—I do not know that he was tried for that.

EDMUND JAMES JONAS . ( Clerk of the paper a of Newgate ). The prisoner was tried here for being at large while under sentence—he was acquitted.

Cross-examined. Q. Was he acquitted on its being discovered that it was not him, but his brother? A. I am not aware on what ground—I know he was acquitted. NOT GUILTY .

522. EDWARD CRAWFORD and HENRY REYNOLDS , burglari ously breaking and entering the dwelling house of William Blanchard , and stealing 1 bag, 21 cigars, 177 pennies, and other moneys; his property.

MR. METCALFE . conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM GLASS . ( police sergeant, C 3). At half past 4 o'clock in the morning of 26th April I saw the prisoners—Reynolds was looking round a corner into Mary lebone-lane, and Crawford was a short distance from him, with a bulk under his coat—I followed them, and when they arrived at the corner of Golden-square I saw Reynolds throw something towards the rails of the inclosure—when we came up to him he was taking cigars out of his pocket, and throwing them on the ground—I left him in custody, and followed Crawford, who ran to the east side of the square, took this bulk from under his coat, threw it on the ground, and ran in the direction of

Marshall-street—I sprang my rattle—I lost sight of him for a moment, but he was taken—I took the bulk which he had had, and it contained 177 pence, 585 halfpence, and six farthings—on searching him at the station, I found 3 s . 1 1/4 d . on him—on bringing him back to the spot, I picked up thirty-one cigars where I saw Reynolds throwing them away.

Cross-exanined by MR. MACENTEER . Q. Whom did you see first? A. Both nearly at one moment—when I gave Reynolds into custody, Crawford might be twenty-fire yards from me—he was twenty-five or thirty yards from me when he threw these things away—he did not make any resistance.

Cross-examined by MR. POLAND . Q. When you first saw Reynolds, Craw ford was about a yard in advance? A. Yes—in the square I saw Reynolds take these cigars out of his pocket, and Crawford was on in front—Reynolds was not drunk at all.

JOHN PEACOCK . ( policeman, C 170). I followed the prisoners, and took Reynolds—I saw him throw away this jemmy; I found it just by the inclo sure of the square, where I saw it go from his hand—he had not been drinking—I did not see him throw any cigars away.

WILLIAM CROSS . ( policeman, C 121). On the morning of 26th April I saw the two prisoners just before they came to the County Fire Office in Regent-street—it was about a quarter before 5 o'clock—it would take them about two or three minutes to walk from there to Mr. Blanchard's, the Scotch Stores.

Cross-examined by MR. POLAND . Q. Were they together? A. Yes—it wanted a quarter or 20 minutes to 5 o'clock—they were a few yards distant from Marylebone-street.

WILLIAM BLANCHARD . I keep the Scotch Stores, in Beech-street On 25th April I went to bed about half past 1 o'clock—I was the last person up, and all was then safe—I was called at half past 6 o'clock—I found the cords of the fan light so broken that anybody could get in—they had been safe the previous night—the doors were unfastened—I missed some silver mounting; and about 39 s . worth of coppers, in pence, halfpence, and farthings; and about 5 l . worth of silver; and they had passed into the cellar, and taken some wine—this bag belongs to the Union Bank; I had had it on the Saturday previous, with 100 l . worth of silver—it was in my house that night, and was missed in the morning—I had placed some of the coppers in paper, similar to this paper which is wrapped round some of the money—I missed 130 or 140 cigars—I have brought some to correspond with what are here—the copper was not in this bag.

EDWABD PLUMRIDGE . I am porter to the Scotch Stores. I came down about a quarter before 7 o'clock in the morning of the 26th—I have heard what my master has said, and I say the same about the fan light.

Crawford. I said before the Magistrate that I was in a coffee shop that morning till half past 4 o'clock; he told me to consult my legal adviser; the sergeant went to the coffee shop, and I believe he told the persons not to come.

WILLIAM GLASS . re-examined. I went to the coffee shop—I did not desire them not to come.

Witness for the Defence.

SUSANNAH PEARSON . I live at a coffee shop, in St. James-street, Hay-market. Crawford came there that morning, at a quarter after 1 o'clock, and did not leave, till half past 4.

COURT . Q. What were you doing? A. Waiting at the coffee shop—it is open all night—Crawford was asleep part of the time—I took him a cup of coffee at half past 4 o'clock—it was from half past 4 to 5 o'clock when the gas was put out—it was getting light at' the time he left—my master cleared the boxes at that time—my master asked me what time he left—I did not go to the police office—my master was not there—there was no body else up but my master and me—my master is gone to Shropshire, he went last Sunday.

( Crawford received a good character. ) CRAWFORD — GUILTY . Aged 22,— Confined Nine Months .

REYNOLDS — GUILTY . Aged 19.— He was also chrged with having been before convicted.

THOMAS SANDFORD . ( policeman, D 254). I produce a certificate of Rey nolds' former conviction—( read : " Guildhall, Westminster, April , 1854, Henry Skinner, convicted of stealing a spoon; confined six months ")—I was present—the prisoner is the person—I have known him from that time.

GUILTY .*— Confined Eighteen Months .

523. JAMES SCOTT , stealing 1 dressing case, value 10 s .; also, 10 dressing cases, 28 books, 80 purses, and other goods; of Samuel Moore , his master: to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 19.— Confined Twelve Months .

524. JOHN THOMPSON , burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of William Vince , and stealing 23 penny pieces, and other moneys of his: to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 24.— Confined Twelve Months .

525. ELLEN BARRY and MARGARET QUICK , stealing 3 dresses, a shawl, 10 yards of alpaca, and other goods, value 40 s .; the goods of Edward Dutton .

MR. THOMPSON . conducted the Prosecution.

EDWARD DUTTON . I am a butcher, and live in Well-street, Cripplegate. In the afternoon of 30th April, I came out Of one room into another, on my first floor—I saw the prisoners there, and they had got these three dresses, a shawl, about twenty yards of calico, and some other things—each of the prisoners had some of them in their arms—they saw me, and dropped them down—I asked them what business they had there—it was about half past 1 o'clock—my house is under repair and the painters had just gone—Quick said that one of the painters had sent her up for half a crown—I had seen these articles safe not ten minutes before, they were then in the further side of the room—I never saw the prisoners before.

Cross-examined by MR. PAYNE . Q. Was your street door left opent? A. I suppose the door was open—the house was under repair; the lock was taken off to be repaired—Quick said that one of the painters had sent her up for half a crown—the painters were just gone to dinner—I cannot say which of the prisoners had any part of these articles, each of them had some of them in their arms, and they were trying to conceal them under their shawls—I left them in the room in custody of our workpeople while I went to the door and got a policeman.

Quick. I had the bit of calico in my hand. Witness. I think you had the calico and some other things, but Barry had the larger part of them.

HENRY SLATE . ( City policeman , 87). I was called in, and took Quick into custody—as she was leaving the house, I saw her throw these three keys behind the door—they are common keys, and are such as will open poor people's room doors—this one has been altered from it's original make,

so that it will open almost any door—I found that both the prisoners live together, at No. 49, Parker-street, Drury-lane.

Cross-examined. Q. You went to the place after the prisoners were in custody? A. Yes—I never saw the prisoners in that place in Parker-street—I took Quick into custody, and from the address they gave at the station I went there.

WILLIAM WALLER . ( City policeman , 121). I took Barry into custody—she gave her address, No. 5, Kennedy-court, Middle-row, Holborn—I went there, but no one knew her—I afterwards went to another place.

Quick. This young woman went into the room with a young man; I thought they staid too long, and I went to see for her; I only went to the door of the room.

GUILTY .

( The prisoners were both farther charged with having been before convicted. ) JOSEPH MITCHELL . ( police sergeant, F 6). I produce a certificate—( read: "Westminster Sessions, Feb. , 1855; Ellen Smith, convicted of stealing four gowns, and other articles; Confined twelve months ")—I was present, Barry is the person.

WILLIAM GEORGE M'KENZIE , ( City policeman , 283) I produce a certi ficate—( read: "Clerkenwett Sessions, May , 1853; Margaret Quick, con victed of stealing a frock, and other articles, having been previously convicted; Confined nine months ")—I was present, Quick if the person.

BARRY — GUILTY . Aged 19.

QUICK — GUILTY . Aged 41.

Confined Twelve Months

526. GEORGIANA CHATTEN , feloniously cutting and wounding James Chatten , with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

MR. PLATT . conducted the Prosecution.

JAMES CHATTEN . I keep a coffee shop at Knightsbridge. The prisoner is my wife—she came out of prison on New Year's day—I fetched her home, and she lived with me till 27th March—on the Sunday before this the prisoner's sister had come up from the country on a visit—she and the prisoner were very good friends at first—on the Tuesday I was going to take my wife and her sister to a place of amusement, but instead of that I went over to my own sister's, at Rotherhithe—I left my wife at my sister's, and returned home to business—I expected my wife home the next morning—she never arrived—I staid at home till 11 o'clock at night—I then went out to see if I could find her anywhere in the neighbourhood—I did not go to Rotherhithe to fetch her—I heard something about her, and when I got home, I found the prisoner and her sister quarrelling in the kitchen—the prisoner said to me, "You have been out with some one, and could not come to fetch me"—I tried to make peace—she tore her sister's bonnet off and threw it on the fire—I begged her to be quiet, and tried all I possibly could to keep them both quiet—I could not, and I left them to put on my cap and jacket, and when I came back to the kitchen she flew at me, and scratched my face—I said I was determined I would not put up with that—she said, "I will do for you, I will smash the windows"—she took the poker, and was breaking the glass—I went to take the poker, and received two blows on the front of my head—I fell back insensible into the arms of some one—I was taken to St. George's Hospital; I did not remain there—I continued an out patient about five weeks.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY . Q. You got these blows when she was striking the glass? A. I tried to prevent her from striking the glass, and received the blows—I did not tell her I had been out with a woman, nor

had I been—I left home at 11 o'clock, and was home again by 12 o'clock—I had not been in company with a woman, and treating her, while I was out—I had never treated a woman that night—I believe my wife does not say that I am in the habit of doing it—she does not say that I am out night after night with women, treating them—I admit that I have given females a glass of ale in a public house—I know Mary Gibbs, she was my servant—I am given to understand that she is now in the family way—I have not told my wife that I am the father of that child—I deny it.

Q. Have you told your own sister so, who is here? A. No, I deny it—she was living at my place when my wife came home—we have a servant named Jane Bull, aged about fourteen, living with us—I have not been found in bed with that girl—I deny it—these are low characters that they want to bring against me.

Q. Have you ever struck your wife, and given her black eyes frequently? A. I admit I did once strike her—she came home so intoxicated, that I struck her—I gave her one black eye—she was breaking all the things, she was so intoxicated.

WILLIAM BEGBORN . ( policeman, B 177). I heard the cry of "Police!" and "Murder!" and found the last witness injured, and in the arms of a civilian; he was bleeding from a wound in the head—I took him in doors, and the prisoner was given in charge—she said, "Oh, James, forgive me!" and on her way to the station, she said, "The poker was not so bad this time as the knife."

GUILTY . of unlawfully wounding. Aged 24.— Judgment Respited.

THIRD COURT .— Tuesday, May 13 th , 1856.

PRESENT —Mr. Ald. FARNCOMB .; Mr. Ald. FINNIS .; Sir ROBERT WALTER .

CARDEN , Knt., Ald.; MR . Ald. EAGLETON .; and MICHAEL PRENDERGAST , Esq.

Before Michael Prendergast, Esq., and the Seventh Jury.

527. CHARLES MITCHELL and WILLIAM JENNINGS , bur glariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of James Brooks , and stealing therein 1 copper boiler, value 15 s .; the goods of James Hamlet , and fixed in the said dwelling house: to which

MITCHELL PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 21— Confined One Year .

JENNINGS PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 25.— Confined Eighteen Months . (A police constable was severely injured by the violence of Jennings. )

528. CAROLINE CHALLIS , stealing 23 cigars, value 3 s ., and 2 s . in money; the property of John Dunater , her master: to which she

PLEADED GUILTY , and received a good character. Aged 19.

Confined Nine Months .

529. THOMAS BRODIE , stealing 1 pencil case, value 25 s .; the goods of James Kay Mackay .

MR. PAYNE . conducted the Prosecution.

JAMES KAY MACKAY . I am a stationer, of No. 29, John-street, Bedford-row. I manage the business of my brother, a stationer, in Paternoster-row—on 26th April, between 4 and 5 o'clock in the afternoon, the prisoner entered the office—I was busy writing my evening letters for the mail, and had not much time to speak to him—he was standing at my back, the desk

being against the wall—I had finished one letter, and took out my gold pencil case, worth 25 s ., to seal it with, after which I laid it down on the table—the prisoner, who was about two feet from me, took it up, asked the price, and made some other remarks, which I did not pay much attention to (we do not sell pencil cases, we are wholesale stationers, and only sell paper)—being busy writing, I did not observe him leave the room, but heard the door shut, and then missed the pencil case—I went to the stairs and saw the prisoner just about to go out into Paternoster-row—I called to him, but he made no reply—I hesitated for a moment to leave the place, as there was nobody there but myself—I then ran into Paternoster-row, but did not see him—a man passing spoke to me, and I ran into St. Paul's Churchyard, and saw the prisoner running—he was stopped by a policeman, and I saw my pencil case in the policeman's hand—the prisoner was taken lo the station.

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER . Q. You have known the prisoner almost all your life? A. No—I have seen him three times in the last eighteen months—I knew him at the Bank of Glasgow—I did not see him often there; I knew him to speak to, and since he has been in town he has called on me three times—he did not tell me that morning that he had an appoint ment with the member of Parliament for Cavan—he came to call on me, and said that he hoped to have a situation very shortly, I think he said in China, through the member for Cavan—he did not say that he hoped to get a charac ter from me—I was up a flight of about thirty stairs—after he was committed by the Magistrate, I returned to the Magistrate's room, but I did not say that I did not think he intended to steal it—I might have said something to miti gate the punishment—I had been detained in London three weeks longer than I should otherwise have been, and said that it was a pity that he was com mitted, there being nothing found against him—with regard to the pledge tickets found on him, I made a request to Sir Henry Muggeridge that his deci sion as to his committal to be tried here might be mitigated—I have no idea how long he was at the Bank of Glasgow—he bears a very high character.

MR. PAYNE . Q. Did he ask you to lend him the pencil case, or any money? A. He had previously borrowed some few shillings of me, which he has not paid—I did not authorise him to take this pencil case—he was running in St. Paul's Churchyard, and when I went up to him, he said, "I did not intend to steal your pencil case."

FRANCIS STANWAY . ( pity policeman , 311). On Saturday afternoon, 26th April, I saw the prisoner running in St. Paul's Churchyard—I stopped him, and found this gold pencil case in his hand—I searched him at the station, and found on him twenty-one duplicates, twelve of which relate to coats, a 3 d . piece, and a hand vice—I ascertained that he lived at a coffee house in Back Church-lane, Whitechapel.

Cross-examined. Q. Did not he say that he did not intend to steal the pencil case? A. Yes, and that he was hurrying off to see a gentleman in; New Cannon-street—I do not know whether the member for Cavan lives in New Cannon street—I could see the end of the pencil case in his hand.

MR. PAYNE . Q. How was he running? A. Very fast, there was a policeman and several persons following him.

COURT . to JAMES KAY MACKAY . Q. When you turned to write, the pencil case was in his hand? A. Yes.

MR. COOPER . Q. Have you a timepiece in your room? A. No, nor down stairs—I did not cry "Stop thief!"

COURT . to FRANCIS STANWAY . Q. Was the policeman who was running

after him calling out "Stop thief?" A. He called out "Stop him!" once or twice in a loud tone.

MR. COOPER . contended that there was no trespass committed. MR. PAYNE . suggested that if the prisoner intended to steal it when he took it up, that it would amount to a felony. The COURT . left the question to the Jury.

NOT GUILTY .

530. HENRY WOLLENS , stealing on 22nd April , 5 quires of paper; value 5 s .; on 23rd April , 5 quires of paper, value 5 s .; and on 24th April , 4 sheets of paper, value 4 d .; the goods of William Hopcroft , his master.

MR. COOPER . conducted the Prosecution.

ABRAHAM BENTLEY . I am a printer, in the service of Mr. Hopcroft, of Mincing-lane. The prisoner was a journeyman in the same employment—I was ordered to watch him, and did so on the night of 23rd April—it was about 2 o'clock when I gave him in charge—I saw him take some paper, roll it up, and put it into his hat—I ran down into Mincing-lane, got a policeman, and told him to look into the prisoner's hat—he found these three sheets of paper ( produced )—I then counted the paper that the pri soner had been working on, and found it twenty sheets short—I had counted the paper before that night, and it was all right—the paper was double demy—the prisoner had no right to take it, unless his employer allows him, but I often take home a sheet of paper.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALPE . Q. You often take home a sheet of paper when it is spoilt, and unfit for printing on? A. Yes—one of these three sheets are spoiled, this one—I should have felt at liberty to take that away—if the paper is too wet it cannot be printed on, but is not spoiled; it cannot be printed on at that time—I am the person who damps it before it goes to him—the paper when found was not as it is now, it was like this ( crumpled up )—the prisoner could not see me, but I was where I could command a view of him; I was in the dark in the office at the oppo site corner—he was at No. 42, Mincing-lane, and I was at No. 1, the opposite corner, looking for the purpose, but, for all the prisoner knew, he was alone—he had had, for some weeks, a latch key to let himself in and out at night—he had access to all the paper—this was in the middle of the night—there are no blinds to either house—1,036 sheets are allowed for every 1,000 to be printed, the thirty-six sheets are for waste—I do not know whether a man may take away the thirty-six sheets if he does not spoil any, but I have often taken a sheet of paper home—there has been no prohibition in the office to taking away paper under any circumstances—there is nothing defective in the other two sheets, but one of them has been torn since.

CHARLES EDWIN DODD . ( City policeman , 511). The prisoner was given into my custody, he had his hat on—I asked him what he had in his hat—he took it off, and said, "Two or three sheets of damp paper, too wet to work on"—he took them out, and said that he always thought there was plenty served out, so as to allow for damage in printing.

JOSEPH BROWN . ( City policeman , 584). On this night I went to Mr. Hppcroft's premises, and saw the prisoner given into custody—I went to the address he gave, and found twenty-four packages of blank paper, and a quantity of printed paper.

Cross-examined. Q. Where did you find it? A. In a chest of drawers—he gave me his name and address—he does not keep the whole house, he has apartments on the ground floor.

THOMAS SMITH . I am manager to Mr. Hopcroft, a printer, of Mincing-lane. On the afternoon of 23rd, I counted the paper over, and gave it to Bentley to damp—I have seen the three or four sheets ( produced )—they are not in good order now; I should not think they were spoiled before they were doubled up, but I do not know how they were when he had them—I have examined the paper found at the prisoner's house, it is worth 7 s . or 8 s ., and is Mr. Hopcroft's property; they are not spoiled sheets—we do not allow paper to be taken, but it is the custom in the business—the prisoner has been six weeks in the service.

COURT . Q. You do not allow it? A. No, but it is the custom at other houses for pressmen to claim the paper which they do not spoil; they are entitled, as a reward for their care, to the sheets which are not spoiled—very often there are a great many spoiled in the working—these are not fit for circulation.

Cross-examined. Q. Has he been working for five or six years for Seyfang and Co.? A. Yes—the house does not wish to press the case against him.

( MR. COOPER . here withdrew from the Prosecution. ) NOT GUILTY .

531. ROBERT CHISNELL , stealing 59 1/2 yards of silk, value 10 l . 10 s .; the goods of Edmund Spall .

MR. W. J. PAYNE . conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM TRIM . I am warehouseman to Edmund Spall, a silk agent, of No. 120, Cheapside. On the afternoon of 1st May, about half past 5 o'clock, I left the premises with my master, who fastened the door, and took the key—the warehouse is on the second floor—on the following morning I went to the warehouse, as usual, about 10 minutes to 9 o'clock, and about a minute or two afterwards a policeman came up to me—I found that the door had been broken open, and fastened again with a hinge; the policeman took it off, and we both went in—on looking round I missed a parcel of nlk aprons, which had been on the counter, and the cash box, which had been in a little ante-room on one side, and contained two sovereigns, and a few shillings in silver; it was safe on the Thursday evening—there were nearly twenty pieces of silk, and they were worth about 30 l .—on the 2nd I went with an officer to Mr. Duke's, a pawnbroker's, in the New Cut, and two pieces of silk were shown to me there, which I immediately recognized, as a portion of the silk taken from the warehouse—three other pieces of silk were shown to me at Mr. Cole's, in the Waterloo-road, on the same after noon, which also formed a portion of what I had missed; and last Saturday I saw two more at the Mansion House; they formed a portion of the same silk—I do not know the prisoner.

Cross-examined by MR. LILLEY . Q. Is Mr. Spall in a large way of busi ness? A. Yes—there might, perhaps, be the same quantity of silk on the premises in a drawer that there was on the counter, and of the same pattern and quality, and some other patterns as well—we had about thirty pieces of the same pattern, and have about ten left; we only supply the wholesale houses—we have supplied a great many pieces of this particular pattern to the wholesale houses—Mr. Spall is agent for a manufacturer at Macclesfield.

MR. W. J. PAYNE . Q. I believe this particular silk was made by Mr. Sherrard, of Macclesfield? A. Yes—that in the drawer was not taken away—I recognize this by the pattern and quality; the pattern is made exclusively by Mr. Sherrard for Mr. Spall—from the wholesale houses it goes to the retail.

JOSEPH COMBER KNIGHT . ( City policeman , 437). I am a plain clothes

officer. On Thursday night, 1st May, from information I received, I went to Mr. Spall's premises—the housekeeper opened the door—I went to the warehouse on the second floor, and found that the box of the lock had been forced off, and the lock rendered entirely useless—I saw no other marks of violence, and, not being able to ascertain where Mr. Spall lived, I got a strong hinge and fastened up the door, leaving the place in the care of the housekeeper—I got there in the morning, just after the last witness.

CAROLINE FOX . I am the wife of Joseph Fox. I formerly lived as servant with the prisoner—he keeps a beer shop in the Waterloo-road—last Friday week I met the prisoner, between 1 and 2 o'clock, and he asked me if I would go for an errand for him, and he asked me to pledge these things—they were lying before me, folded up—I pledged three pieces at Mr. Cole's, between 4 and 5 o'clock, and these two at Mr. Wharton's—I took two pieces of silk to Mr. Vickers'; and while I was there an officer came and prevented me—I handed the money and duplicates to my mistress, and she passed them over to my master, in my presence—I had taken the articles off the table, in the presence of my master and my mistress; my master told me to take them—I have been in the habit of pawning things before—I received 11 s . on each of the three pieces of silk.

Cross-examined. Q. How far do you live from there? A. Ten minutes' walk at the most—I was a servant there when I married—Mr. Cole lives opposite, Mr. Duke lives close by, and Mr. White not far off—I had pawned things there before for the prisoner.

JAMES HOBBES . I am assistant to Mr. Wharton, of Mount-street, Lam beth. I produce two pieces of silk, pledged on 2nd May, by the last witness, for 15 s . each.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you know her? A. I had never seen her before, and I have been there twelve months.

SAMUEL HEZEKIAH COLE . I am a pawnbroker, of the Waterloo-road. I produce three pieces of silk, pledged by Cox, on 2nd May, two at 22 s ., and one at 11 s . in the name of Chandler.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you know her? Yes; I have known her some time.

GEORGE LEGG . ( City policeman , 440). On Friday afternoon, 2nd May, I saw Cox at Mr. Dickers', the pawnbroker's, No. 82, Lambeth marsh—these two pieces of silk were rolled up on the counter; from information I got there, I went to the Hit or Miss beer shop, Waterloo-road, saw the prisoner there, and asked him if he had sent Fox with two pieces of silk to pledge—he said, "Yes"—I asked him where he had got them from; he said that he bought them of a tallyman on the Tuesday previous (this was on Friday)—I asked him if he had got a bill—he said, "No, I paid ready money, 1 l . a piece, to make my wife some dresses"—I asked him if he knew the man, he said that he did not—I told him that the silk would be detained, and left him—I then went to the City, took Mr. Trim to the pawnbroker's to see the silk; then went back to the prisoner's house, took him to Mr. Dickers, and asked him whether the silk on the counter was his property—he said, "Yes;" and that they were the two pieces he had sent his servant to pledge for him—I told him that he must consider himself in custody for having stolen property in his possession, and asked him if he had got any more—he said that he had only those two pieces which he had bought of a tallyman on the Tuesday previous, to make his wife a dress, and that it would be a lesson to him—I searched him at the station, and found 3 l . 16 s . 6 d ., a silver watch and guard, a gold ring, and a purse.

Cross-examined. Q. He said that they were his, without hesitation, and that he had sent Fox? A. Yes; I was away about thirty minutes, and when I went back I found him at his house.

WILLIAM TRIM . re-examined. These two pieces of silk found at Dickers' are Mr. Spall's property, and were safe when I left on 1st May.

COURT . Q. Are all the silks found of the same pattern? A. Yes, but of different colours; they are made expressly for aprons, we sell them at 30 s . a dozen—they are all my master's property, and are manufactured at Sherrard's—we have sold about 100 dozen of them—they had not been on gale more than six weeks at the time of the loss—I cannot answer for their not being some which had been add, but the lengths tally exactly—there are twelve aprons in each piece, but they always divide them when they are sold, as they would never sell a dozen of one colour; they divide them into quarters or half dozens—finding them thus, implies that they come direct from some wholesale house—we lost twenty pieces with a dozen in each, and have only found seven—they were not ticketed or numbered—the largest quantity we have sold is, perhaps, thirty dozen, to Crocker and Co., of Fri day-street, but they would cut them up into quarters or half dozens.

GUILTY . on 2nd Count. Aged 55.— Confined One Year .

532. WILLIAM WEAVER and BENJAMIN CLOUSE , robbery on Alfred Sharwell , and stealing, from his person, 1 watch, 1 ring, and 2 keys, value 4 l . 15 s ., his property: to which

CLOUSE PLEADED GUILTY .** Aged 19.— Confined Twelve Months .

MR. W. J. PAYNE . conducted the Prosecution.

ALFRED SHARWELL . I am a warehouseman, of No. 8, Victoria-street, Hackney-road. On Friday night, 28th March, between 9 and 10 o'clock, I was in High-street, Shoreditch—when I got to Hare-court, which I did not know before, two men came out of it; one of them jumped at me, and snatched at my watch, and the taller one hit me a How under the ear—I fell against the corner of the alley, and then ran after the other party, and was struck a violent blow—the men both went up the court—I ran after the one who had taken my watch, the shorter one—I cannot say who he was, as it was done in a moment—in the court I was struck another violent blow on the back of the neck—I cannot tell by whom, am I was running, the person was on one side of me—that knocked me senseless to the ground, and stunned me—mine was a silver hunting watch, with No. 8172 on it, and my initials—I have not seen it since—this chain was left hanging round my neck.

Cross-examined by MR. PAYNE . Q. Did you nut after the man who snatched your watch? A. Yes—the snatch was first, and then the blow—another man, I cannot say who, struck my head against the wall, the moment it was taken—I do not affect to say who either of them were—I have always said that I was struck two blows.

GEORGE WOOLLARD CLARE . I live at No, 80, High-street, Shoreditch. On Friday, 28th March, at a few minutes past 9 o'clock, I saw Sharwell in High-street—when he got near Hare-alley I saw Clouse rush on him, snatch his watch out of his waistcoat pocket, and run up the court with it—he had been loitering about the court previously—it was fourteen or fifteen yards from my master's door—Sharweli ran after him followed by Weaver, and a man who is not in custody—I had seen these prisoners together ten minutes before the watch was taken, with the man not in custody—I knew them all

three by sight, having seen them pass up and down—I have no doubt that Weaver is one of the men who ran up the court.

Cross-examined. Q. What are you? A. Porter to Mr. Blackwell, I stand outside—I am a barker.

HUGH ANDREWS . ( policeman, H 62). On Wednesday, the same day that I was before the Magistrate, I saw the prisoners together in George-street, Spitalfields—I took Weaver, and told him that I wanted him for a watch which was stolen at Shoreditch—he said that he knew nothing of it—I had seen the prisoners and another party about 9 o'clock on the night of the robbery standing about thirty yards from where it took place, in High-street—I had a good view of them—I might be three or four yards from them—I knew them before, and have no doubt about them—Weaver is one of the three.

Cross-examined. Q. While the examination was going on, did you hear Weaver say, "I am innocent, Clouse done it"? A. Yes.

COURT . to GEORGE WOOLLARD CLARE . Q. At the time this rushing took place you did not see Weaver? A. Yes, at the moment the watch was taken—he was at the back of Clouse, close by, but I could not see whether he struck Sharwell—he was not near enough to touch him, he was about a yard from him—I am quite sure of Weaver.

JOSEPH DUBBLE . ( policeman, H 195). I was with Andrews on Wed nesday in George-street, and saw the prisoners—as soon as Clouse saw me he ran—I ran past Weaver, telling Andrews to take him—I took Clouse, took him to the station, and charged him with stealing the watch—he looked at Weaver, and said, "We know nothing about it"—after a witness came to identify him, he said, "I did do it, but Weaver had nothing to do with it"—I know them, they are always together.

WEAVER — GUILTY .**† Aged 20.— Confined Twelve Months .

533. ELIZA DAVIS , stealing 1 watch, value 6 l .; the property of Samuel Hassan , from his person.

MR. LAWRENCE . conducted the Prosecution.

SAMUEL HASSAN . I live at No. 4, Worship-street. On 15th April I was going from St Paul's down to Farringdon-street, about 10 minutes past 9 o'clock—the prisoner spoke to me, and I walked with her a short distance—my watch was then safe in my pocket—we turned up Wheatsheaf-yard,. she remained talking to me there two or three minutes—a man came up, and she ran away—the man tried to hold me, and began to ask me about some chambers—my suspicions were aroused, I felt for my watch, and found that it was gone—I followed the prisoner, and saw her running on the other side of Farringdon-street—I ran across, took her by the arm, and accused her of taking my watch, and she put it into my hand, but said nothing—a policeman came, and took her—I found the handle of my watch on the ground in the yard—the chain was left behind—the watch is worth 6 l .

Cross-examined by MR. PAYNE . Q. How long were you with her? A. Five minutes, but not two minutes up Wheatsheaf-yard.

MR. LAWRENCE . Q. You did not give it to her? A. No—she is one of my people ( a Jewess ), but I did not notice that at the time—I do not know whether she is a foreigner; she speaks English like a native—I am from Gibraltar.

WILLIAM ROWLAND . ( City policeman , 247). On 15th April, at a quarter past 9 o'clock, I was in Farringdon-street, and saw the prisoner run away by Wheatsheaf-yard, followed by the prosecutor—she ran to Harp alley,

where he stopped her—I went up, and took her to the station; she was searched, and 1 d . found on her—she gave her address, No. 47, Bell alley, spitalfields—I went there, but there was not a house of that number.

Cross-examined. Q. Did she say Spitaltields? A. She said Bishopsgate-street—I found No. 7 and No. 27—she spoke like a Jewess, but I quite understood what she said.

WILLIAM GOODEYE . ( City policeman , 52). I found this ring of a gold watch ( produced ), in Wheatsheaf-yard, on 15th April.

GUILTY . Aged 20.— Confined Four Months .

534. DANIEL O'KEEFE , maliciously wounding Harriet Washington .

MR. THOMPSON . conducted the Prosecution.

RICHARD COUSINS . ( policeman ). On the evening of 13th March, in con sequence of information, I went to the Royal Oak public house, and found Harriet Washington, with her head on the tap room table, bleeding very furiously from the eye and the nose—the prisoner was there, and a person present gave him into custody for throwing a quart pot at the woman—the woman could not speak—the prisoner said, "I did do it; I did not intend it for the poor woman, I intended it for my wife"—his wife was not there, I did not see her till we got thirty or forty yards towards the station; she followed us.

HARRIET WASHINGTON . I am a widow, and live at No, 4, Shepherds-place, Westminster. On the evening of 13th March I was at the Royal Oak, and saw the prisoner there, and his wife, whom I did not know—they were having words—my friend set his beer down on the table, and the prisoner's wife took it up and threw it at the prisoner—he then took up the pot, and threw it—I think it was intended for his wife, who was sitting down—I was standing up, not a yard from her, and it struck me with great force over the eye—I was taken to the hospital—I was there five weeks, and am still an out-patient.

Cross-examined by MR. PAYNE . Q. Who were you with? A. Mr. Crane, he and I had been drinking together—I did not lose ray senses—I do not recollect the prisoner helping me up, and saying that he was very sorry-his mother came to me in the hospital, brought me several oranges, and said that her son would allow me 5 s . a week till I got well, if he could get his liberty—I had no spirits or beer brought me into the hospital, I had a little ale.

JESSE CRANE . I was at the Royal Oak with the last witness—I had drunk once of my pint of beer, and went into the tap room to sit down—the prisoner's wife pushed my pot of beer to him, he threw the pot with Ms left hand, with very great force—I did not see it strike Mrs. Washington—I do not know how he had provoked his wife—they were having words when I went in.

OTHO VITALIS . I am house surgeon to the Westminster Hospital. On 13th March the prisoner was brought there, with a cut on her forehead, part of the nose was broken, and part of the bone of the orbit—she was in danger for about four weeks afterwards, and is still an out-patient—there will still be some trouble from the wound, she has had an attack of ery sipelas from it.

Cross-examined. Q. Would drinking ale, tend to produce erysipelas? A. Not at all; we gave her a liberal diet, she Bad brandy and port—they would not tend to produce erysipelas.

GUILTY . Aged 30.— Recom mended to mercy by the Jury.— Confined Fourteen Days

THIRD COURT .— Saturday, May 11 th , 1856.

PRESENT —Mr. Ald. CUBITT . and Mr. COMMON SERJEANT .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant and the Sixth Jwry.

535. WILLIAM SMITH , stealing 1 printed book, value 3 s .; the goods of Ann Owen ; and 1 printed book, value 3 s . the goods of Caroline Smith : to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 48.— Confined Three Months .

536. WILLIAM LUNDEY , burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Humphrey Clare ; with intent to steal.

ELIZABETH CLARE . I reside with my brother, Humphrey Clare, at No. 38, Buttesland-street, Hoxton. Early on Sunday morning, 20th April, I was disturbed by a man opening my bedroom door—I saw his arm, that was all—supposing it to be my brother, I called to ask if it was, but having no answer, I hastened to the door, and the light was extinguished—I went to my brother's bedroom and found him asleep, and rang the bell to give an alarm—Mr. Hayward saw the window open—it had been closed at 20 minutes before 1 o'clock in the morning, but it was not fastened—the back door was bolted.

Prisoner. Q. Did not the Magistrate put the question to you whether you knew me again, and you said that you did not see my face? A. I did not see your face—I noticed your coat, because the light you had, shone on it—there was a little bit of white on the coat—I saw you brought back in about half an hour afterwards, and then there was white on your coat.

EDWIN HAYWARD . I live in the house of Mr. clare. I was alarmed on that Sunday morning—I heard the bell ring—I saw Mrs. Clare—I went down into the passage—I saw the back door open, and the window was wide open—I went into the yard, and saw some footmarks—I gave infor mation to the policeman—I went into the back yard, and saw the prisoner jumping over the wall—he jumped over four or five walls before we got him—we followed him, and did not lose sight of him—the walls were very low—he was taken in about a quarter of an hour.

DANIEL LUFF . ( policeman, N 62). I received information from the last witness—I saw the prisoner leaping over the walls—I called "Stop thief!" and never lost sight of him till I found him in a watercloset about seven gardens off—I said, "What do you want here?"—he said that he was hun gry, and wanted something to eat—his stockings were off, and were in his trowsers pocket—I took him to the station—he said, "I don't deny being in the house, but the window was open."

GUILTY . Aged 38.— Confined Twelve Months .

537. JOHN JONES and EDWIN COMBE , stealing 4 frocks, 7 pina fores, and other articles; the goods of James Broom , from the person of Mary Broom : to which

JONES PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 18.— Confined Twelve Months .

MR. WAY . conducted the Prosecution.

MARY BROOM . I am the wife of James Broom, I live at No. 2, Queen's-square, Bartholomew-close. On 30th April I was at the corner of Princes-street, Barbican, about 5 minutes past 11 o'clock at night, carrying a large bundle—I felt some one's hand on my shoulder, I turned, and saw the two

prisoners togethert—Combe disappeared, lie went off the pavement—Jones snatched my bundle, and they both ran together up Princes-street, and I after them—I ran into Charles-street, Bridgewater-square, and Combe came to me, and said, "What is the matter?"—I said, "Don't talk to me; why don't you catch that man that has got my bundle, which you know?"—he struck me in the face, and I fell down—I got up again, and ran after them—they were both running together down the street—they ran into Golden-lane, and I lost sight of them—from the time I first saw Combe till the time he struck me, I had not lost sight of him—I never lost sight of them till they got into Golden-lane—I saw them about an hour afterwards, I went with the policeman, and gave them into custody—I saw them at a lodging house in Golden-lane, with other persons—my bundle contained four frocks, seven pinafores, five aprons, and some other things—I had an opportunity of seeing the person of Combe before he struck me—he laid hold of my shawl, and I looked him in the face—I am quite sure he is the man.

Combe. Q. I was sitting in the house, conversing with the woman who keeps the house, when you came in with the sergeant and two men, and took me; what time did you see me in the house? A. About an hour after I was robbed, about half past 12 o'clock.

JOHN DELLOW . ( City policeman , 95). On 30th April I received infor mation of this robbery from Mrs. Broom—she gave me a description of the persons who committed it—it was owing to that, that I took her to the lodging house in Golden-lane—I found the two prisoners in the house—they were recognized by the prosecutrix—as soon as she got a fair sight of their faces, she recognized them.

Combe. She did not recognize me, she said I was not the man. Witness. She did recognize you—she said once tnat she did not think you were the man.

COURT . Q. When was that? A. As soon as she went into the room I told him to step forward, and she said, "I don't think that that is the man;" but as soon as he came in sight of her, she said, "That is the man that knocked me down"—she recognized him as soon as she got a fair sight of him.

Combe. Q. You said, "Are you sure that that is anything like the man?" and she said, "Yes;" but did she not say five different times that I was not the man? A. No.

DAHIEL DELLOW . ( City policeman , 118). I was present on 30th April when the two prisoners were taken into custody—I heard the prosecutrix recognize them.

FRANCES EGERTON . I am the wife of William Egerton—I live at No. 2, Queen-square, Bartholomew-close. On the night of 30th April I was with Mrs. Broom, at the corner of Princes-street—I saw Jones and another person with him, but whether it was Combe I could not say—I could not identify him—Jones snatched the bundle from the woman, and he ran away—the other party made towards Princes-street—Mrs. Broom had nearly overtaken tfcem, calling out, "Stop thief!"—I followed as quickly as I could, but they; had proceeded too far for me to see anything more done—the other person was the same size as Combe, as near as I could judge—I cannot swear to him.

Combes Defence. On the night of 30th April, while sitting in the house of Mrs. Gardner, three policemen came in, accompanied by Mrs. Broom; I being the nearest person to the police sergeant, he asked her if

there was any person in the room who robbed her; she said she did not know; I was asked to stand up, and I did; the policeman then asked her if I was the man, she said that she could not say; he asked her again if I was like the man; she said that she could not say and could not swear, five different times; I asked Mrs. Broom how long it was since it happened, she said about an hour; I said that I had been in the house more than that time; Mrs. Gardner also said that was not the man, meaning me, at the time; there were several more persons in the room at the tune, who said the same as Mrs. Gardner; one of the policemen then nodded to Mrs. Broom, and she directly said, "Yes, policeman, that is the man that knocked me down;" I then asked Mrs. Gardner if she would be so kind as to come to Guildhall in the morning to speak for me; she was outside the Court when I had my hearing; I was remanded for two days, and when I was brought up, Mrs. Gardner was in the Court; I called on her, and asked Alderman Muggeridge to have my witnesses sworn; he told me, not then, I might call them at Newgate, for he should send me for trial; I have sent to Mrs. Gardner since, and to my friends; I hare sent my friends to her, but her reply is that she would not come for 5 l .; the police have been there, so I doubt not but they have put a stop to her coming to prove my innocence; there are more men than me that dress like me in London, there are thousands; I can prove that I do not get my living by thieving; I have been at work for Mr. Henry Hartrey, of Bermondsey, the last six months, and I am not more than seven months from Ireland; I can look any policeman in the face, and bid defiance to any one to say he knows me.

COMBE — GUILTY . Aged 25.— Confined Twelve Months .

538. JAMES NEWMAN , assaulting Mary Ann Crowley , with intent, etc.

GUILTY . Aged 25.— Confined Eighteen Months .

OLD COURT .— Friday, May 30 th , 1856.

PRESENT —Mr. Ald. FARNCOMB .; Mr. Ald. SIDNIY .; MR. RECORDER .; and Mr. Ald. WIRE .

Before Mr. Recorder and the Fourth Jury.

539. PETER FRANCIS MOGAN , stealing, whilst employed in the Post Office, a post letter, containing a sovereign and 2 cards; the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General .

MESSRS, CLARKSON . and POLAND . conducted the Prosecution.

MATTHEW PEAK . I am a police constable attached to the Post Office in St. Martin's-Grand—on the morning of the 15th April I saw Blackburn, the plumber, clear out a water closet on the basement floor of the General Post Office—it was the second one on the left, coming out of the London District Office—I believe it is one of the closets appropriated to the letter carriers—Blackburn cleared out the pan, and stopped it, by putting in some brown paper—after he had done this, I watched that closet—I went to the back of it, to what is called an air shaft, and looked through a grating—there is a gas light in the closet, which is burning all day; it was burning then—I watched therefrom about half-past 6 o'clock till about half-past 6—Smee, my brother officer, then came and relieved me—up to that time

nobody had entered the closet—I still continued to watch—I was away for a short time, but about half-past 7 o'clock I heard the door leading from the office shut, and I went back, looked through the grating, and saw the prisoner enter the closet—the grating is at the back of the closet, at the right hand of a person on the seat, it forms part of the wall—the prisoner sat down on the seat—I heard some paper tearing when he was sitting down—I then saw his hand go behind him—he got up in a minute or so, and went out—as soon as he had left, I went and fetched Blackburn, and instructed him to search the closet—I left Smee at the grating—Smee had a better view of the closet than I had, because he was more at the front—I saw Blackburn search the pan, and take out some pieces of paper which appeared to be portions of a letter—I have it here—after the pieces were taken out Blackburn washed them and pot them together, and then they were given to me by Mr. Sculthorpe, and have been in my possession ever since—after the papers had been examined, I went to look after the prisoner in the Sorting Office—that was about half-past 7 o'clock—I could not find him there—I gave information to Mr. Gapes, the inspector of letter carriers, of what I had seen—I afterwards went into the Sorting Office again, about 8 o'clock, and picked out the prisoner, and he was taken into Mr. Sculthorpe's room.

Cross-examined by MR. GIFFAKD . Q. Do you mean to say that the prisoner was not in the Sorting Office at half-past 7 o'clock? A. I did not see him—I looked—I will not swear he was not there—it is a very large office—I believe there are twelve water closets altogether in this basement—four are for the letter earriers—they are parted off by a gate, so that each party can go to his proper place—you cannot go from one to the other without going through a different door—there are three doors, one for the clerks, one for the sorters, and one for the letter carriers—there is also a separate door to each closet—the gates were locked—they are put up on purpose that each person should go to his proper place—they do not always go to their proper places—I dare say they go to whichever is most convenient, but there is an order against it—the closets are all of the same construction—a man would not be able to get rid of a letter mere easily in the carriers' closet than the sorters,' only it would throw off suspicion—the grating is about the height of the man's head when he is sitting down—it is about four inches by eight—I and Smee were both looking through it—we were about two feet from the man, about level with his head—I saw him put a piece of paper down by his side when he first came in—I did not see the letter—I heard it crumple—I should think he sat there seven or eight minutes—I saw him undo his dress—he sat there as if he was using the closet—nobody had used it that morning but the prisoner—I think two used the one next to it—I was watching this particular closet—I saw two persons go to the next closet, one was a riding boy—I spoke to the prisoner afterwards about his having been to the water closet-that morning—he said he had been to the second one—that is the one I have been speaking of.

MR. CLARKSON . Q. What was it that passed between you and the prisoner? A. When I went to Mr. Sculthorpe's room I said to the prisoner, before I searched him, "You have been down to the water closet this morning"—he said, "Yes, I have"—I said, "Which closet did you go to?"—he said, "The second one"—I said, "Yes, you have been seen to destroy a letter there this morning"—he made no answer—I then saw Smee search him, and he produced a sovereign—I saw him take it out of the prisoner's pocket—he either gave it to me or laid it on the table—I took it up, and

asked the prisoner where he got it from—he said he took it in his wages last week.

COURT . Q. Had anything occurred which induced you to watch this particular closet? A. I was instructed to do so, and from information I had from Blackburn.

MR. GIFFARD . Q. Was not what the prisoner said, that the sovereign was saved from his wages? A. He said he had saved it from his wages last week—I think he said "got" it, but I will not be certain which—it was one or the other—I knew him by sight, but not by name.

WILLIAM SMEE . I am a constable attached to the Post Office. On the morning of the 15th April I was watching this water closet—I relieved Peak about half-past 6 o'clock—it was one of the letter carriers' closets, the second from the corner, next the iron gate—I remained there until a quarter past 7 o'clock—I could see the entire of the closet through the grating—there is a gas light in the closet—up to that time nobody had entered the closet—at a quarter past 7 o'clock the prisoner came in—he turned himself round, and fastened the door—he then arranged his clothes and sat down on the seat—I then saw him put his left hand into his left coat pocket at the side of him (it was a shooting coat with two pockets)—he took something out, of the appearance of a letter, and brought it in front of him—he tore something with his hand of the appearance of a letter, but he sat in such a stooping position that I could not exactly see whether it was a letter or not—the paper was torn up in small pieces—I then saw him put his right hand behind him to the pan, and drop pieces of paper of the appearance of a letter—I saw a post stamp on part of it as it was felling—it was a red stamp—I directly turned off the water, to prevent them being washed away—after about a minute or so, the prisoner got up, arranged his clothes, and went out, and directly afterwards Blackburn came in—Peak and I were both together all the time—he left me for about a minute, and returned directly—he had the opportunity on his return of seeing into the water closet—he had not so good a position as I had—he could see the person in the closet—he had a better sight of his face when he came in than I had—when Peak went for Blackburn I remained watching, to see that no one else came in—no one but the prisoner came to that closet up to the time of Blackburn's coming—when he came he commenced taking out the fragments of a letter—I saw writing on them—it looked like a letter—it was all in small pieces—I went with him into his shop, which is in the vaults, and there he put them into a bucket of water, and washed them—we then put them together, and saw the address on them—I afterwards delivered them to Mr. Sculthorpe, after Blackburn had put his initials on some portions of them—I have here on this piece of tissue paper the papers I saw Blackburn take out of the pan, and also a portion of two cards—they are the same pieces that I received from Black-burn—one of the cards bears the name of "Mr. G. T. Attwater," and the other "Mrs. Frederick Davidge"—they had been torn up, but have since been put together—I afterwards gave information to Mr. Gapes, the inspector of letter carriers, and was in the office when he took the prisoner into Mr. Sculthorpe's private room—I heard Peak say to him, "You have been down to the water closets this morning"—the prisoner said, "Yes, I have"—Peak said, "The second one on the right from the door, in the letter carriers' closets?"—he said, "Yes"—Peak then said, "We saw you tear up a letter this morning"—the prisoner made no answer to that—I then searched him—in his left trousers pocket I found a purse containing a sovereign, half a crown, and a sixpence, and in his right trousers pocket

two sixpences, and three halfpence in copper—Peak then took up the purse and the sovereign, and asked the prisoner where he got this sovereign from, holding it in his hand at the time—the prisoner said, "I received it last week for my wages"—I then went and fetched Mr. Sculthorpe, and he was told all the circumstances in the prisoner's presence—we told him that we had been watching this certain closet in the basement, and that we saw the prisoner come in and tear up a letter—I then said, "I have searched the prisoner, and found a purse on him containing a sovereign, half a crown, and a sixpence, and two sixpences and three halfpence in the other pocket"—I then handed Mr. Sculthorpe the sovereign, which he closely examined—he held it up in his hand, and said to the prisoner, "Where did you get this sovereign from? I mean this particular sovereign, it is a George and Dragon sovereign of 1824"—the prisoner hesitated for a few seconds, and then said, "I received it from the bank with other money"—Mr. Sculthorpe asked him what bank, and he said, "The Provident Bank, St Martin's-lane"—Mr. Sculthorpe said, "When?"—he said, "About three or four months ago"—he was then given into custody—I took possession of the sovereign—I have had it ever since, and now produce it—from half-past 6 o'clock, when I went to relieve Peak, down to the time when Blackburn, brought these papers from the closet, no one had been to that closet but the prisoner.

Cross-examined. Q. Was not what the prisoner said, that he got the sovereign from the bank last month? A. No; I did not try to ascertain from the Provident Bank, in St Martin's-lane, whether he had drawn out any money the month before, I am not aware that any one has done so—I had no instruction to go—there is a savings bank there, called the Provi dent Institution—he did not say he got it out of the savings bank last March—he said "three or four months ago," he never mentioned any month—my deposition was read over to me before I signed it—this is my signature ( The witness's deposition being ready stated : "The prisoner than stated he received it from the bank in March last")—it is my impression that he said "three or four months ago"—I will not say that what I said before the Magistrate was not true—I think he did say "March last)" I cannot say positively, it is some time ago—when Peak first spoke to him about the sovereign he said, "I received it last week for my wages"—he did not say he had saved it from his wages and drawn it out from the bank in March last—he said nothing about the bank at that time—I did not hear him mention the fact of having received it for his wages more than once, and that was to Peak: nor yet about the bank—the first of these conversations was about a little after 8 o'clock, and the other, I suppose, about 9 o'clock—it was in answer to Mr. Sculthorpe that he mentioned about drawing it from the bank—he did not use the word saved to Peak—that I swear—I heard Peak examined—I was not in the sorters' room about half-past 7 o'clock, I was at the door, and Peak had been in and said he could not see him—I looked through the door—I did not see him—he was not sitting in the same place as he was when I saw Mr. Gapes go in, and took him to the comptrollers' room—he might have been in some other seat—there might have been a dozen sorters there when I looked in, they were just returning from their breakfast—I believe they breakfast down stairs in the kitchen—I cannot say which water closet would be nearest to a person coming up from the kitchin—in order to get from the front of the water closet to the air shaft where Peak and I were, you must come up stairs into the office, go into the hall of the Boat Office and through a door, and down into the vaults—it would take about a minute or a

minute and a half to do that—I continued at the air shaft while Peak went for Blackburn—I saw Blackburn take out the fragments of a letter it was as light there with the gas, as it is here—I could not see right down into the hole, I saw him put an instrument down and bring them up, it was a wooden instrument about three or four feet long, I could not see how far down it went.

COURT . Q. You say you turned off the water, is there a handle in the air shaft for that purpose? A. Yes; each closet has a handle, I turned it off before he rose from the seat.

JURY . Q. Had the prisoner no means of destroying the letter except by putting it into the pan? A. I cannot say, there was an open gas light in the closet by which he could have burnt it.

WILLIAM BLACKBURN . I am a plumber employed at the General Post Office. On the morning of 15th April I was directed to go to the water closets on the basement—I went there about a quarter past 6 o'clock—Peak was not with me, he was in the air shaft; he could see me—I washed out the closet and stopped it, I put a sheet of brown paper into the trap; it is a self acting closet, the seat is on a spring, and when a person rises the water flows in—there is a trap below the pan—I washed that trap out—it is a ten inch trap, made of lead, and contains a gallon of water—the contents of the pan go into that trap in the ordinary way, and when the person rises the fall of water washes out the trap—I put the brown paper in the trap for the purpose of preventing anything from passing down it without my knowledge—after doing that I left the closet, leaving nothing but water and the brown paper in the trap—Peak was then at the grating; about a quarter past 7 o'clock Peak came and fetched me, and I went to the same closet—I examined the pan, I found that it had been used in the usual way—I cleared out the trap—I had an instrument made of two pieces of wood like a pair of tweezers, and with that I pulled up the contents of the trap with the sheet of brown paper—there was soil in the trap—I took out some torn pieces of paper and pieces of card, I picked out the pieces, put them into a sheet of brown paper, took them into my shop and washed them in Smee's presence—these are them—Smee wished me to mark one or two of them, which I did, and gave them to him—here are my marks—my attention had been called to this water closet the day before, and I took out seven letters from it.

Cross-examined. Q. What did you take out of the water closet when you went at a quarter past 7 o'clock, with your wooden tweezers? A. I took out the torn pieces of paper and some fragments of printed paper besides these—some parties had been to the closet, I cannot say who—I have no doubt it had been used in the ordinary way, I merely picked out the letter, I did not want those, I put the pieces of printed paper into the trap again, with the brown paper—the rushing of the water into the pan makes a noise, and can be seen by the person using the closet, about a gallon and a half of water flows in—when the water is turned off, there would, of course, not be that noise, the seat would rattle, but there would be no noise of gushing water—I washed out the four letter carriers' closets that morning—there are ten closets in a row, there is a wide space between the clerks' and the sorters', and an iron gate; that gate divides the two closets belonging to the sorters from the four belonging to the letter carriers—a person coming up from the sorters' kitchen would be nearest the sorters' closets—I cannot say whether the prisoner was in the habit of eating his breakfast in the letter carriers' kitchen, they take their breakfast as they can get the

chance—the place is very small, and they are tied for room, and they go where they can—the sheet of brown paper which I put in the trap I doubled up and pushed down—it would be supported simply by its own pressure against the sides of the trap—I found a great many fragments—I washed them and gave them all to Smee.

COURT . Q. Did you clear out the pan and trap that morning so as to be sure that these fragments were not there at that time? A. I am positive of that, I had special instructions from Mr. Sculthorpe with respect to that morning.

WILLIAM SMEE . re-examined. All the papers that Blackburn gave me I banded over to Mr. Sculthorpe, not arranged, but just as he gave them to me.

WALTER ROBERTSON SCULTHORPE . I am one of the assistant comptrollers of the London District Office. I have been in the Post Office thirty-two years. On the morning of 15th April, Smee came to me at my chambers, and in consequence of what he said, I went to the Post Office—I got there about 9 o'clock—I there found the prisoner in my private room with Peak and Smee—Peak informed me that the prisoner had been seen to destroy a letter in the water closet, and Smee handed me the fragments of a letter, and likewise a sovereign, which he stated he had found in the prisoner's pocket—I closely examined the sovereign, and asked the prisoner where he got it from—he hesitated and then said, "I received it from the bank in St. Martin's-lane"—Peak then said, "Why, you stated you received it for your wages"—I do not recollect that he made any reply to that—he was asked, I think, by Peak, what bank he had received it of, and he replied, "The Provident Bonk, or savings bank in St Martin's-lane"—I did not notice that he said at what time he had received it—I believe he has been in the Post Office about twenty years—I think his wages were 2 l . 3 s . 9 d . a week—I received these fragments of a letter, envelope, and cards, from Smee—I put them together, and gave them to Peak—I find a General Post mark on one of the pieces, of 15th April—that denotes that it arrived at the Post Office in London on the 15th—that impression is pat on before the sorting—I also find the county post mark, "Gloucester"—the portion of the letter containing the date is destroyed—the first despatch to Hackney is at 7 o'clock, and the second at half-past 7.

Cross-examined. Q. I presume they have been pasted together in order to represent them as they were in their original condition before they were torn? A. Yes—I did it in a hurry—my chief object was to make out the address—it does not exactly represent what it was originally—there are some portions of it absent—there might have been another postage label on the envelope—a portion of the address is missing—the pieces do not fit in, because the whole of the envelope was not discovered—the defacing stamp is not all on the label here—it ought to be—but it is not always so—it is frequently done in a hurry—it was a larger envelope than I have made it—I put it in too small a compass—the prisoner would not have remained for twenty years in the Post Office if he had not borne a good character—every inquiry is made, but I am sorry to say that many dishonest persons get into the Post Office—the prisoner was nine years a letter carrier, and eleven years a sorter—I did not think it worth while to inquire as to the truth of his statement about getting the sovereign from the bank, because he had made two statements.

MR. CLARKSON . Q. I understand you that that portion of the envelope which should come next to the effaced stamp is missing? A. Yes—I have

put the other portion too close to the Queen's head, and so made it smaller, but it would not exactly fit if the piece was moved—there is an n , at the end of "Wood-street"—that does not form the proper conclusion of the word "cot tages"—if the envelope had two stamps to it, that would explain the difficulty.

COURT . Q. If the prisoner was at the Post Office that morning would a Gloucester letter for Hackney pass through the department where he works? A. Yes—he was one of the sorters in that room—there are a great many sorters there, perhaps fifty—there were some other fragments of paper given me besides these, but not with writing on them—I may have thrown them away supposing they did not belong to the envelope.

THOMAS GAPES . I am an inspector of letter carriers of the London district at the General Post Office. I was there on the morning of 15th April—I saw the prisoner in the Sorting Office—I did not notice him until my atten tion was called to him by the officer—that was, I think, about half-past 8 o'clock, or shortly after—I do not exactly recollect the time—I have the signing book here—the men sign this book when they arrive—it is kept in the Signing Office—it is no part of my duty to see to the signatures—Mr. Cook does that.

Cross-examined. Q. Is there any one here who can tell me whether the prisoner was in the sorters' room about half past 7 o'clock that morning? A. I saw him there about that time—I cannot say to a few minutes—that was before the officer called my attention to him—it was about that time—where they sit depends upon the nature of their duty—Mr. Cook sees to that—there is no fixed time for breakfast—they get it as they can.

THOMAS BURRELL COOK . I am superintendent of the Sorting Department—I saw the prisoner in the Sorting Office on the morning of 15th April; he was there at 5 o'clock.

Cross-examined. Q. Was that the only time you saw him there that morning? A. No ; I saw him at 25 minutes past 7 o'clock in the morning—he left then—he was there from 5 o'clock till 25 minutes past 7 o'clock—he was then taken out of the room by the officers—I only remember Peak coming to the room once, that was when he pointed him out—he might have come in without my seeing him, if I was engaged—I know I am accurate about the time—I know how the duty progresses every minute—the prisoner could not have been absent without my knowledge—I cannot say he was there every minute, or every five minutes.

ELLEN ATTWATER . I am the wife of Thomas Attwater, of Brockworth Gonrt, about four miles from Gloucester. Our letters are left at the house of Mr. Watts, a tailor in the village, where they are called for by the postman—on the 14th of April I wrote a letter to my father, enclosing a sovereign in two cards, one of Mr. G. T. Attwater's and one of Mrs. Frederick Davidge—I put it in an envelope, and addressed it, "Mr. Woolbert, No. 2, Palace-cottages, Wells-street, South Hackney, near London"—the papers on this first piece of tissue paper form part of that envelope—I find here Mr. Attwater's card entire, and a portion of Mrs. Davidge's—I believe these to be the cards in which I enclosed the sovereign—I put two stamps on the letter, because I thought it might be over weight—this other piece of tissue paper contains nearly all the letter I wrote to my father—the sovereign I sent was a George and Dragon—I did not notice the date of it—my father is a great invalid—a person named Lizzy attends on him.

COURT . Q. Look at the word above the word "London," on that envelope; there is apparently an "n," can you account for that at all? A. It is "nr," for near London—I wrote that in the same line as "South Hackney."

JANE WHITING . I am servant to Mrs. Attwater. On 14th April my mistress gave me a letter to post—I did not look at the direction—I took it to Mr. Watts, the tailor, in the village, and gave it to him.

WILLIAM WATTS . I am a tailor at Brockworth, near Gloucester. I remember Whiting bringing a letter to me on 14th April—I saw my wife deliver that letter to Richard Bower, the postman, that same evening.

RICHARD BOWER . I am post messenger between Brockworth and Glou cester. On 14th April I called, in the ordinary course, at Mr. Watts's, and received two letters—my attention was called to one of them—I took them to the Poet Office at Gloucester—I left them there, in the ordinary coarse.

ELIZABETH BERRY . On 15th April I was in attendance upon Mr. Woolbert, of No. 2, Palace-cottages, South Hackney—no letter came there on the morning of 15th April.

GUILTY . Aged 39.— Recommended to mercy by the Jury, in consequence of his long services. — MR. CLARKSON . stated that there was another indictment against the prisoner, and that since his apprehension the loss of letters in that department had greatly diminished.— Six Years Penal Servitude.

NEW COURT .— Friday, May 30 th , 1856

PRESENT —Mr. Ald. FINNIS .; Mr. Ald. WIRE . Mr. Ald. CURITT .; and Mr. COMMON SERJEANT .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant and the Seventh Jury )

540. HARRIET GRAHAM feloniously assaulting John Munro Graham , and, by feloniously firing a pistol loaded with gunpowder and a leaden bullet, attempting to kill and murder him.—2nd COUNT , to do grievous bodily harm.

MR. PARKY . conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN MUNRO GRAHAM . I am a tragedian; I reside in Nelson-street, Camden-town; I perform at the Princess's Theatre. On Friday night, 2nd May, before 12 o'clock, I was in company with Mr. and Mrs. Brazier, and Mr. Cook, leaving the theatre—on reaching the gateway in Oxford-street, I saw the prisoner—she stepped forward, and presented a pistol—Mr. Brazier instantly said, "Good God, she has got a pistol!"—a snap was heard immediately—she presented the pistol towards me; as far as I could judge, it was towards my breast, or my face—I think she made an exclams tion, but I cannot recollect it—a policeman came up, and the prisoner was taken—she had formerly lived with me—I have been separated from her about two years.

Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH . Q. How long had you lived with her? A. Eleven or twelve years—I called her my wife, and represented her to the world as Mrs. Graham everywhere I went—I did not leave her to live with another woman—I have not been living with another woman at all—I have not been off and on keeping company with another woman, not with any other women—I have been keeping company with a young woman at Bow, but not living with her—I have kept company with her.

Q. During the last two years you have not only not been living with the prisoner, but have done nothing towards her support? A. Yes, I have, for nearly twelve months; I paid her 1 l . a week, provided she did not break the

peace, but she did once or twice, and I took her to the police office—I have allowed her something during the last twelve months, but I have not allowed it regularly.

THOMAS BRAZIER . I am engaged as an actor in the same theatre. I was leaving the stage door that night with Mr. Graham, as he has described—I saw the prisoner, in about three or four seconds, coming towards him, and with her hand she presented a pistol—I heard the click of it decidedly, and at the station I saw it unloaded—there was in it a ball, some powder, and other matters.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you hear what the prisoner said? A. No—I was walking arm in arm with Mr. Graham, and she met us—it was all the work of a moment.

COURT . to JOHN MUNRO GRAHAM . Q. Did you hear the prisoner say any thing about the pistol? A. At the police station some one remarked, after the pistol had been examined, that this pistol would not go off—the prisoner replied, "Yes, it will; go to my place, and you will see where I have tried it; you will see two or three marks."

JAMES CRASKE . ( policeman, E 160). I was on duty in Oxford-street that night—the first I saw was Mr. Graham and Mr. Brazier had hold of the prisoner; one had hold of each arm, and she was struggling on the footway—I went towards them, and I beard some one say, "I heard the click"—I went on my hands and knees—the prisoner's petticoat was nearly off—I at last found this pistol under her knees—I took it to the station, and saw the inspector draw the powder and ball from the pistol—the cap was not exploded—some one said, "I don't think the pistol would go off"—the pri soner said, "Oh, yes, it will; go to my place, and you will see where I have tried it on a door."

COURT . Q. What was in the pistol? A. A ball, some powder, and this paper was at the bottom of the pistol—it is greasy, or oily—I cannot say whether the pistol could have gone off—this is the percussion cap.

Witness for the Defence.

JOHN EDWARD HARRISON . I believe I am illegitimately related to the prisoner. I had been in the habit of visiting at the house where she lived for the last three weeks before this occurrence—I am a reporter—this pistol belongs to me—I was in the habit of practising with this pistol in the yard of the house where the prisoner lived, for several days before this took place—on that Friday I was practising with it in the yard—I left there about half past 4 o'clock—when I left, I left this pistol on the table—I did not say anything to the prisoner about it—she was not there at the time I left the house—the detonating powder is still in this percussion cap—if the trigger had struck the pistol, with this cap on—the nipple, it would have exploded.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY . Q. Had you left the cap on the pistol? A. Yes, on the table in the kitchen, and pulled the cock down—the prisoner lives in the kitchen—I live in William-street, Islington, not in the house where the prisoner lives—I have seen her fire off the pistol several times—she fired it off herself—I used to fire once, and she afterwards, to see which could hit the mark—no other lady did so—the prisoner lives in Little Saffron-hill—I believe I am her brother—I took this pistol from my house to her house, and left it there—I was practising it there for amusement—the prisoner did not ask me to teach her to fire it, but she did fire it—she had fired it on the day before, and on the day before that, and on the day before that—she had only been firing it three or fbur days—I do not know that

she had formerly attempted to stab Mr. Graham—I know that she had been held to bail for threatening to ill-treat him—I did not buy this pistol—I had it given me by a cousin who is gone to Australia.

COURT . Q. Did you load the pistol? A. I loaded it, and I made the ballets—I made this bullet that was found in it—I fired at a mark with bullets like this.

JURY . Q. Is there any yard at the house in which you live? A. No—there is a small yard at the house where the prisoner lived—I could not practise the pistol where I live.

GUILTY . on 2nd Count .— Recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor and Jury. Judgment Respited

541. ELIZABETH JONES and SUSAN GRANT , stealing 1 purse, value 6 d .; and 8 s . 8 s . in money; the property of Charles Masters Terry , from the person of Rebecca Terry .

MR. COOPER . conducted the Prosecution.

JOSEPH TAYLOR . I am the driver of a Wellington omnibus from the Elephant and Castle to Shoreditch. On 5th May, about half-past 5 o'clock in the afternoon I was driving from the Elephant and Castle, I was hailed by the two prisoners at Thomas-street in the Borough—I had seen the prisoners before and seen them together—they entered my omnibus, and I made a communication to the conductor—I believe the prisoners left my omnibus in Gracechurch-street—I saw them passing towards Leadenhall-street—the conductor made a communication to me.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON . Q. Did you take up more passengers after the prisoners got in? A. No; I believe I had ten before them—I only take twelve—believe some one got out at the steps—a lady got in at the statue.

HENRY DEAN . I am conductor of this omnibus. On 5th May, the prisoners got in at Thomas-street in the Borough—the last witness made a com munication to me when they got in—in consequence of that I occasionally looked in the omnibus—I recollect the prosecutrix getting in between London-bridge and Gracechurch-street—Jones sat on her right side and Grant sat opposite to her—I was called to to stop, and the prisoners got out on the other side of Cornhill—on their stepping out one of them paid me a shilling for the two, and I gave her change—they both left and went across the road—I received some information from the driver, made some inquiries of the persons in the omnibus, and the prosecutriz said that she had lost something—I went after the prisoners with a policeman—when I came up to them they were in a passage in the street, I gave them into custody and fetched the prosecutrix.

Cross-examined by MR. ROBINSON . Q. How many persons were in the omnibus when the prisoners got in? A. It was pretty full; I cannot tell whether there were ten or twelve—I think Jones sat the fourth or fifth from the door—they had crossed the road before I said anything to anybody inside the omnibus.

REBECCA TERRY . I am the wife of Charles Masters Terry, of Sutton-street, York-road. I got into the omnibus in Gracechurch-street—I do not remember seeing the prisoners—I had my purse in my hand just before I got in, and I believe I put it into my pocket—I intended to do so—the conductor made a remark, and I put my hand into my pocket, and did not find my purse—I do not know what was in it, but I believe there was 8 s .—that was found in it—a gentleman took me to a passage—I there

saw these prisoners—one of them said to me, "Here is the purse, don't say we had it"—I took it—they were close together—one heard what the other said—as far as I remember she said, "Here is the purse, don't say we had it"—I did not wish to prosecute—I did not look in the purse at the time—I looked at it at the station house, and there was 8 s . 6 d . in it—the officer said something to me—I do not think the prisoners heard it.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON . Q. Were there many people about? A. I should think there were forty or fifty—I did not say that I had my purse in my hand—I did not say, "Here is my pmrse;" or, "I have got my purse in my hand"—I do not know who put the purse into my hand—I suppose it was the one that spoke to me—I did not say, "Why, here I have got it in my hand"—it was quite my intention to put my purse into my pocket when I got to the omnibus, I will not swear that I did so—I paid the conductor when I got out; I did not take the money out of my purse, I had some halfpence in my pocket—the conductor asked me if I had lost anything—that was before I paid him—I did not intend to get oat—I had but one pocket; that was on my right side.

Cross-examined by MR. ROBINSON . Q. Had you gloves on? A. Yes—I kept them on when the conductor spoke to me—I did not pull my glove off; I put my hand into my pocket with my glove on—I thought from the conductor's question that I had dropped the purse and the conductor had found it—when one of the prisoners said this to me, the policeman was talking to the conductor—I suppose he was three or four yards from me—there were many persons nearer to me than he was—several of the passengers got out before I got out.

MR. COOPER . Q. Was this an old fashioned pocket? A. It was in my dress on my right hand side—the purse was the only thing I received in that passage, that I am quite sure of.

COURT . to HENRY DEAN . Q. On which side of Mrs. Terry did the prisoner who sat by her, sit? A. On the right side.

THOMAS GOWLAND . I am a silversmith and jeweller, I live in Leaden-hall-street. On the afternoon of 5th May, the two prisoners came hastily into my passage, and I went to the door of my shop—immediately a crowd came round—the lady came up with the policeman—the prisoners were brought further into the passage to the side door of the house—I begged the policeman to keep the people back, and said he had better bring the lady farther in—they went in, and I heard the prisoners urging the lady to take the purse back again—I saw Jones put her hand towards the prosecntrix with something in it—she appeared to me to pass it to the prosecutrix—the prosecutrix said they had given her the purse back again—the prisoners could hear that.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON . Q. Were you in the shop? A. No, in the passage, I went from the shop to the passage—I saw something in one of the prisoners' hands—I could not tell exactly what it was—it was about the size of the purse—I saw the left hand closed and something in it—I understood from what was said, that they were urging her to take it back—I immediately told the policeman—I cannot tell positively what was said, but I concluded they were urging her to take it back, by their words and actions—before forming that conclusion, I heard the evidence before the Magistrate—there were a few persons outside, I got the policeman to keep them back from the passage—it is the passage leading to my side door—my window goes up the passage, it forms a lobby to my shop.

JOHN JACOB . ( City policeman , 35). On 5th May, about 6 o'clock in the

evening, the conductor came to me and I followed die prisoners to the passage of No. 5, Leadenhall-street—I said, "The conductor says there has Seen a lady robbed in the omnibus, and you are suspected of being the parties"—they said, "It is not us, we will go and see the lady"—I said, "Do you live here?"—they said, "No, we are going to make a call"—I did not let them go—I said, "You must remain here till the lady comes"—just then the lady came up—I asked if she had been robbed—she said, "Yes"—I asked if she knew the parties—she said, "No"—Grant came to the outside of the passage endeavouring to get out, and Jones was with the proeecutrix farther in the passage, and Jones turned round and said, "The lady has found her purse, she is not going to press the charge against us"—I said to the lady, "Is that true?"—she held the purse up, but made no answer—I then took them to the station, and in going Jones said she hoped I should not say anything against her, and she would well recom pense me for it; and Grant threw down or let fall three sovereigns and a Half sovereign—Jones said, "You will go to my address, won't you?"—I said, "I shall go to the one you give me"—she said, "I hope, you will do something for me, a half sovereign would go a long way"—I said, "It is no talking, to me in that way, all you say I shall say before the Magis trate"—she said, "Then all I said will die away"—I went to the address she gave, No. 24, Walworth-road.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON . Q. Did you see the prosecutrix come up? A. Yes; I was not near enough to hear all that passed between her and Jones, for Grant came to me and was wanting to get out—Jones and the prosecutrix were at the end of the passage, I could see them, but could not see their movements—I might be two yards from them when Jones dropped? A. I turned round just as they were dropped, one of them was rolling towards me—I stooped and picked it up, and another person took up the others—Grant did not show a hole in her pocket before me.

WILLIAM FITZGERALD . ( City policeman , 536). I was with the last witness conveying the prisoners to the station—I saw three sovereigns and a half drop from Grant—I picked up a half sovereign, and three sovereigns were picked up in my presence.

JONES *— GUILTY . Aged 30.— Confined Twelve Months .

GRANT — GUILTY . Aged 33.

( Grant was further charged with having been before convicted. )

JAMES THOMAS SYMONS . I produce a certificate of the prisoner's con viction—( read: Newington Sessions, May , 1855, Susan Hawkins, con victed of stealing a purse and 2 l . 7 s . Confined four months" )—Grant is the person—I had her in custody.

GRANT — GUILTY . Confined Twelve Months .

THIRD COURT .— Friday, May 30 th 1856.

PRESENT —Mr. Ald. CUBITT .; Mr. Ald. EAGLETON .; and MICHAEL PRENDERGAST , Esq.

Before Michael Prendergast, Esq., and the Second Jury.

542. JOHN RAYMOND and WILLIAM WREN , robbery on Char lotte King , and stealing from her person, 3 l . 10 s .; her money.

MR. PAYNE . conducted the Prosecution.

CHARLOTTE KING . I am an unfortunate woman, and live at No. 11 Wellesley-street, Seymour-street, New-road. On the night this happened, I went into Smith's coffee shop, Caledonian-road—I had four sovereigns and 3 s . in a purge—I had some supper, which came to 5 d .—I know Wren, he was a waiter there—I had seen him very often when I have been there—I gave him a sovereign to pay for what I had, and he brought me the change, half a sovereign, and the rest in silver—I then went outside the door, and Wren asked me if I would lend him 5 s .—I said, "You do not want it"—he said, "I do"—I said, "I will lend you half a crown," and I did so—while I was talking to him a friend of mine, a girl, came up; she went in with me and I paid for her supper, and a young man's, who was with her—while I was talking to them Wren came in, and said, "There is a young woman waiting to speak to you at the door"—I went out, and he went with me; I said, "Where is she?"—he said, "I do not know"—I looked round the corner to see where she was, and Raymond knocked me down—I have seen him in the coffee shop, he was not employed there—he struck me on the back of the neck, and pushed me as well, knocked me down, and took my purse, which was round my finger—I saw no young woman: Wren stood on the step of the door looking on, while the other knocked me down, but he did not interfere at all—I did not see the man before he knocked me down, he held me down with one hand, and took my purse with the other—he hit me very hard, my neck and head were very sore afterwards; he hit and pushed me both at once—he hit me with his left hand, he had a crutch in his right, but did not hit me with that, he is lame—I screamed when he pulled my purse off my finger, but Wren did not take any notice; he was there when I was knocked down and when I got up, but did not help me, or join in the attack upon me—Raymond walked from me and stood against the lamp post, and there he stood when I got up—I said to Wren, "You have been the instigation of my being robbed, and I will not have you locked up if you will give it to me, and I said the same to Raymond—at the time I was saying it, Jane Hamilton came out at the door; they both denied the charge, and said that they knew nothing of it.

COURT . Q. While you were talking to Wren, Raymond stood near the lamp post? A. Yes, he did not run away—when Jane Hamilton came out I said, "I have lost my money, and this man has robbed me"—I had my hand on his shoulder, and he went into the coffee shop; I followed him, and told Mrs. Smith—she said that she knew nothing about it—when Jane Hamilton came, she accused Wren of the robbery, and he said that he knew nothing about it—while she was talking to Raymond, Wren went into the coffee shop—when I went in and spoke to Mrs. Smith, I left Raymond outside, still talking with my friend, she was accusing him of the robbery when I went in.

MR. PAYNE . Q. After you had spoken to Mrs. Smith, did you go for a policeman? A. I could not get one at King's-cross, and I went to Isling ton; when I came back I saw a policeman by the coffee shop, and he took Raymond into custody, who was standing on the opposite side of the way—that was nearly an hour afterwards—he said that he knew nothing about it, and did not care—Wren was inside the coffee shop waiting on some one, when the policeman went in; he was taken into custody—he said that he would go, but he did not know anything about it (I had 3 l . 15 s ., or 3 l . 16 s .)—I think it was a little before 1 o'clock in the morning when the policeman came; it was five or six minutes after 12 o'clock when I lost my money—I had

got none of it that night; I got some of it two or three nights before—I have not got it back nor my purse—I got the money from different gentle men, and had been saving it up to go into the country—I do not always carry my money about, but I was going to meet some young girls who I knew to wish them good bye—I was only going up to Islington, I do not call that the country—I was going to Bargewell, in Norfolk, fourteen miles from Norwich—I have been in London two or three years—I was knocked down and robbed before I could hardly get off the step of the door.

COURT . Q. You had been in the habit of going to that coffee shop many times? A. Yes—I live some way from it—I had seen Raymond before at the coffee shop when I have walked through—there is convenience at the coffee shop for persons of my calling—I have been there a great many times.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON . Q. Was there a crowd outside? A. No—at the time I was knocked down I only saw Wren and Raymond there—there was nobody else there—I was knocked down directly I got out-side—I do not know how many persons were in the coffee shop—there was a young girl with me—she was in the private room, and there was a young man who was having supper with her—not a single soul saw me knocked down—Wren is not the owner of the coffee house, he is the waiter—Raymond has nothing to do with the house that I know of—I have seen him there as I passed through sometimes—I have not said that he struck me on the forehead with his crutch or with his hand—I said that he held me down, with his hand on my forehead, but did not knock me hard—that was when I was knocked down, and while he was taking the money from me he hit me with his open hand—Wren was on the step of the door—the girl was inside finishing her supper—the door was not open—she could not see—there are two doors—Wren served in the shop, and Mrs. Smith and the servant girl were serving in the bar, which is through the shop—I did not notice any customers in the shop when I went out, but there were some when I first went in—two men were sitting by the fire when I first went in—it was on the step of the door that Wren asked me to lend him some money—the girl desired me not to pay a sovereign in the shop, but before that I paid down a sovereign and thought it was a shilling—it was before that that Wren asked me to lend him five shillings—I was then outside the door on the step—I had changed the sovereign before that—the other girl came from the Caledonian-road—I went into the shop alone at first, that was to have my supper—I gave Wren the half crown on the step of the door just as the other girl was coming up—the rest of my money was in my purse at that time—I do not know the young man's name—I had seen him before—I am not an acquaintance of hia, but I have seen him with my friend—I do not know whether he is a witness here—I have not seen him since—he was in the coffee shop at the time I was knocked down—he did not call out, but when I called out he came out—he said that he did not hear me—when I first went in with the other girl I do not know whether the two men were there, but they were when I first went in—I brought my money out because I was going to see some girls whom I knew, and I might spend some of it—I did not think anything about losing it or I should not have taken it—I did not show it to the other girl—she knew that I had it, because she lived with me, and knew that I took it out—she left the house with me—I did not see her first in the coffee shop, I left with her at 8 o'clock in the even ing, and took my money in my purse—I did not tell her the reason I was taking it—she told me to leave the money at home, and I would not—I told her I was going to Islington to see somebody—it was a small green purse, a

long one, with tassels at the end of it—after I left borne I walked about to see if I could see some girls whom I wanted to meet—I was four houre walking about, and went to the coffee shop about a quarter before 12—I had not been in any house, and did not see anybody; yes, I went and had three glasses of stout with three gentlemen—I had no gin, I am quite sure of that—I had appointed to meet the other girl at the coffee shop, and she got there after I came out—only two girls live in the same house.

COURT . Q. Whereabouts is it you live? A. In Wellesley-street, which runs out of Seymour-street—from the time that I was knocked down to the time Raymond was given in charge, he was not very far off the same place—neither purse or money has been found—I had no bruise, but my head was very bad where he hit me.

Cross-examined by MR. M'ENTEER . Q. Did Wren know you? A. Yes, by seeing me go there—there was a public house on the opposite side—nobody came to assist me—I called out my Mend's name very loudly—I have not said that a person named Staines robbed me—I knew Mrs. Smith, and she knew me, as going to that house—she did not come out.

COURT . Q. You made your complaint to Mrs. Smith? A. Yes, and I think Wren heard that—he did not answer, that I know of, when I told her that I had been robbed—I said nothing to her about borrowing the half crown, nor did he—Mrs. Smith saw that I had money, because I paid her some money that T owed her before—I did not get the change for the sove reign then—my supper only came to 5 d .—I paid Mrs. Smith the money before I Went out to see whether the girl was there—I paid her the money when Jane Hamilton was with me—I do not know whether it was two or three shillings I paid her.

JANE HAMILTON . I live in Wellesley-street, at the same house as the last witness. I went out with her on this night—I cannot say the time, but I think it was about 10 o'clock—she had 4 l . 3 s . with her—I saw it, it was four sovereigns and 3 s .—she had it in a long blue purse, with tassels.

COURT . Q. A blue or a brown purse? A. I cannot say exactly, either a blue or green.

MR. PAYNE . Q. About how long had you remained with her when you went out together? A. About half an hour—an appointment was made to meet at the Crown public house in the Caledonian-road—I went there about 12 o'clock, or a little after; I did not find her there, and proceeded to Smith's coffee shop—she was standing outside the door with the waiter—I had a young man named Joseph with me; I do not know his surname—I knew him, and had supper with him, for which Charlotte Ring paid; she took out a sovereign, and called Wren to take it—I told her not to change a sovereign when she had got silver in her purse, and she put down half a crown—after that Wren told her that a girl Wanted her outside, she went out first, and Wren followed—I and the young man remained—in about four or five minutes she screamed, and called my name; I went to the door, which was closed, and as I opened it, she was coming in crying—the prisoners were both standing outside, and she pointed to Raymond, and said, "That man has knocked me down, and taken my money"—he denied it: he had a crutch—Wren said nothing that I heard; he went inside—I am sure that he was standing at the door, because I was the first person that went to the door after the cry—I am sure he did not go to the door before me, he was standing outside when I went out—he came to the table and said, "Here is a young woman wants to speak to you"—she went out, and he followed her out of the shop—I could not see the door where I was—there

is a private place where people can go and have supper, it is next to where they serve—I was in the little room behind, inside—I did not see Wren inside the place after he said that a girl wanted her outside, and went out—there were some people sitting there when we went in—Charlotte King went into the shop first, and left me and Raymond outside—I opened the door in two or three minutes, and she was in the shop accusing Wren of being the instigation of her being robbed, and when I opened the door she came out—we went together to look for a policeman, it may have been half an hour before we found one—Raymond was given in charge, he was then standing opposite the coffee shop—I did not say anything to Raymond outside, nor did I hear what she said to him—he still stood there—the pro secutrix was perfectly sober, and so was I; I had had nothing to drink that night.

COURT . Q. Have you been long acquainted with Charlotte King? A. About four or five months, but I have known her since she was a child; we were both children together in Norfolk—I lived at Market Dereham, and she at Bargewelt—I have been in London about three years—I knew that the had this money—she was going to meet some friends, and took out the money—I wished her to leave it at home—by friends, I mean females—I do not know what she was going to do, or any object which she had in taking out the money—we lodge at Mr. Watkins's, we are the only two girls in the house—I have got my room, and she has got her's—we do not live together—I know Mrs. Smith who keeps the coffee house, we were in the habit of going there almost every night to have supper—the Crown public house, where we were going to meet, is not far, it is about: five minutes walk—I was in the habit of going to the Crown as well as to this place.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON . Q. Is this public house near the coffee shop? A. Yes, Mr. Wheeler's is—that is not the Crown, the Crown is further up; it is the Queen's Arms—there is only one public house in the street; there is more than one in the Caledonian-road, but opposite the coffee shop there is but one—I walked as far as Bingham-street, Caledonian-road, with the last witness; I was not more than hall an hour with her—I appointed to meet her at the Crown, we generally used to meet there, outside—I met her close by the Crown, just as I was going in—we generally used to meet each other outside—I had been for a walk after leaving her—I had not been in anywhere, or been drinking—I had nothing to drink with the young man Joseph, but he had a glass of stout—he paid for it—I did pot have any—there was just upon a dozen people at the Crown, drinking at the bar—there was a concert held there, and they had just come down—I remained five or ten minutes, I did not see Charlotte King there; I first saw her outside the coffee house, standing by a lamp post—nobody was with her but the waiter—when I passed through the coffee shop there were some people sitting there—I cannot say whether there were half a dozen, then were more than two, but I cannot say as to three—I do not know what they were doing—as you go through the shop there is a bar where they serve, and there is a door leading into the room, but it is not a room, it is a box—there is a partition and a door; the partition runs up to the ceiling—it is not a very large room—it is in the shop that they serve—after this had happened, Charlotte King told me that she had had nothing to drink—that was as we were going to the station house; she told me that without my askinrr her: I do not know why—I have not been talking about this matter

since to her, we are not together—we have not quarrelled, but she is away from me; she is in Middlesex Hospital as an in-patient.

CHARLOTTE KING . re-examined. I am in the hospital now, I was not when this happened—this ( produced ) is my certificate.

ROBERT BARR . ( policeman, N 207). About 12 o'clock on this night I was in the Caledonian-road, and saw Wren and the prosecutrix outside Smiths coffee house talking—I saw them again about a quarter past 12 o'clock, Hamilton was then there, and they all went into the coffee shop—about a quarter past 1 o'clock I was called to take Raymond into custody; I had seen him by the coffee shop about half past 12 o'clock, and about a quarter of an hour afterwards saw him cross the road from the coffee shop—when I took him he was standing on the opposite side, about forty yards from the coffee shop—they both denied the charge.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON . Q. How long was it from the time you first saw these women to the time you apprehended Raymond? A. About an hour and a half—there was a man with them when I saw them first, at a quarter past 12 o'clock, and there might be two or three others, but I cannot be certain whether there were two or three others besides Wren—I did not see Raymond at that time—they were outside the coffee shop then—there were two others, I believe—when I saw Wren the first time, he and the prose cutri were by themselves—the second'time I saw Wren, the prosecutrix, Hamilton, and, I think, two men, I cannot be certain whether there were one or two—Wren was one—they were strangers to me—Raymond was not there—I do not know when the assault was committed—I cannot tell you whether it was before or after she was knocked down that I am speaking of—they were talking together, and I walked on—my beat is by there—I went on as far as North-street, which is about 150 yards—I went up the Caledonian-road, but at the distance I went did not command a view of the coffee house—I should not have heard a scream, because there are so many carriages—I go down as far as King's-cross—I was at the end of the Caledonian-road by King's-cross when King spoke to me.

Cross-examined by MR. MAC ENTEER . Q. When you accused Wren, what did he say? A. He denied all knowledge of it—the prosecutrix said that she had told Mrs. Smith—when she gave him in charge Mr. Smith was present, but I do not know whether Mrs. Smith was—Wren has been long at the coffee house—I saw Raymond at half past 12 o'clock that evening, and again at a quarter to 1 o'clock, standing by himself just by the door in the Caledonian-road—no complaint was made at that time—I have often seen him standing there, but not lately.

COURT . to CHABLOTTE KING . Q. Did you leave the door to find the young woman? A. No, I had not time to do so—as soon as I got to the door I was robbed—I did not repeat this story about Wren in the presence of Mrs. Smith—I was talking to Wren in the shop, and Mrs. Smith was in the bar—she did not hear what I said that I know of, she was in the parlour—my head was very sore, but there was no bruise—I am not in the hospital in consequence of any hurt that I received on that night.

COURT . to ROBEKT BARR . Q. Did King appear hurt, did she complain? A. She did not complain of being hurt at all—she made the statement that she had been knocked down—( Wren's statement before the Magistrate was here read as follows : "The girl did send me to ask the prosecutrix to come out and see her, but when we went to the door the girl was not there: the prosecutrix ran down the road after her.")

COURT . to ROBERT BARR . Q. Do you know this coffee shop? A. Yes, persons of all sorts are in and out there all night long—it is an accommoda tion house—I do not mean anything improper, but only for refreshment—I do not think it is a place where men and women go.

COURT . to JANE HAMILTON . Q. You go to this house? A. Yes, I have been there over and over again—you can have beds for the night there—I have slept there, not by myself but with men—I have only slept there once with a man—unless persons apply for a night's lodging, the accommodation is not given—if you ask for a bed for the night, you are accommodated for the night—you would not be accommodated for a quarter of an hour or an hour, that I am aware of—there is a parlour behind the coffee shop—I am not able to say whether that room is kept private if men and women go in—men and women could not carry on that sort of intercourse there, that I am aware of, without interruption—there is a sofa there, but not a bed.

CHARLOTTE KING . re-examined. There is such a room, to my knowledge, and if men and women go into it they will not be interrupted—I do not know whether anything is paid for it—I never paid anything, and never saw anything paid for going into the separate room.

MR. MAC ENTEER . called

MARY LAWRENCE SMITH . I am the keeper of the coffee house where Wren officiates—he has lived with us twice, the first time for one year, and the last time for two years—his character is unimpeachable.

COURT . Q. You heard the complaint of the prosecutrix? A. Yes—she came in some time afterwards, and said that Wren had sent her out, and she was robbed; she did not say by a man with a crutch—I did not send for a policeman—she did not say that she was robbed at our door, she only said that it was outside—I did not hear her cry or call out, "Jane!"—I was in the bar—she called out, "Joseph, Joseph I"—that is the young man who was with them, and then Jane Hamilton went out, and Joseph too—she was in the house when she called out that—she only called out "Joseph!" and they all three went out together—the prosecutrix seemed excited—she ran into the house when she said, "Joseph, Joseph!"—I did not hear her say,"Jane!"—she did not complain, for I sent my waiter out to see what was the matter: that is Wren—about twenty minutes afterwards the prosecutrix came into the bar, and said that Wren was as bad, for he had sent her out—I heard that she had been robbed when Wren returned.

COURT . to JANE HAMILTON . Q. When you were called, how were you called? A. "Jenny, Jenny!" —they were very pitiful cries, they came from outside the house—the bar is in front of where we sat to have our supper—I had to pass through the shop, and as I opened the door King was coming in at the door, crying—I heard her crying before she opened the door, when I was sitting having my supper, and I jumped up and went out—you sit behind the door to have your supper, and the bar is in the front—as you open the door the bar is on one side, and the place where you have your supper is on the other—they are both equally near the door—the cries were quite audible—that was what brought me out—they would be as audible in the bar—they could hear as well in one place as in another—it was in a pitiful voice and a loud voice—she was crying—Wren was outside when I got out, and Raymond" by the side of him—I had seen the purse, I dare say ten minutes before, or more than that—she had it wound round her finger when she went out of the coffee shop.

COURT . to MRS. SMITH . Q. You took some money of her? A. Yes, I gave her change—I saw the purse, but did not notice it—my waiter received

a sovereign from her to pay for the supper, and he gave her the change—it was, I think, half a sovereign, and the rest in silver—I do not know whether she had the purse or not—I gave my waiter the change—I am certain that it was given to her, and after that she brought me 3 s . 6 d . which she owed me—that was the second time she came in.

COURT . to ROBERT BARR . Q. I suppose there are various little turnings about there? A. Yes, there is a court just by, at the back, which abuts about a dozen yards from the coffee house—there is a light against the door—the house is at the corner of Caledonia-crescent, it stands in the Gale-donian-road—it is quite light at the door, you can distinguish faces fast enough—Raymond did not seem muff confused when I went up to him—I observed no mark of embarrassment about him—he always wears a crutch; he cannot go without it very well.

(— Mitchell, a tailor, of Gresham-place, Portland-road, and William S —, boot maker, of No. 4, Portland-road, gave Raymond a good character; George Dawkins Lane, sturgeon and half-pay officer, and John Fry, fruiter and greengrocer, of No. 75, St. John-street, gave Wren a good character. )

RAYMOND — GUILTY . Aged 21.

WREN — GUILTY . Aged 21.

Judgement respited.

Sixth Jury.

543. ANN WILLSON was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. PARRY . conducted the Prosecution, and MR. PAYNE . the Defence.

MR. PARRY . withdrew from the prosecution.

NOT GUILTY .

OLD COURT .— Saturday, May 31 st , 1856.

PRESENT —Mr. RECORDER .; Mr. Ald. FINSIS .; and Mr. Ald. EAGLETON .

Before Mr. Recorder and the Seventh Jury.

544. JOHN MARKHAM , feloniously forging and uttering an order for the payment of 91 l .; with intent to defraud.

MESSRS. SLEIGH . and POLAND . conducted the Prosecution.

CHARLES FREDERICK ASH . I am an iron merchant, carrying on business at Nos. 20 and 21, Upper Thames-street Early in Feb. last my premises were broken into—among other things, I missed two blank cheques from my cheque book—they were the ordinary cheques of a cheque book of Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Smith's, the bankers, and numbered 15430—other things besides the cheques were also taken—this cheque for 91 l . ( pro duced ) purporting to be signed by me, is not my writing—I never authorised any one to sign it—I believe it to be one of the blank cheques that were taken from my cheque book when my premises were broken into—it is a very good imitation of my handwriting.

Cross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE . Q. You know nothing about the prisoner? A. No.

COURT . Q. What is your reason for believing that to be one of the cheques you missed from your premises? A. It bears the same number, and is a fac-simile in every respect—the counterfoils were also taken—each cheque bore the same number—I lost some bills and papers at the same time, with my signature to them.

JAMES HUMPHREYS . I live at No. 54, Seymour-place, Bryanston-square.

I am not in any employment at present—I was last employed by Mr. Harris, the tailor, of Oxford-street, as porter—in Feb. last I was out of a situation—on the 18th I put an advertisement in the Times , and among other replies I received one purporting to come from a gentleman of the name of Hammond—in consequence of receiving that note I went next afternoon, between 2 and 3 o'clock, to No. 6, Oakley-crescent, City-road—I inquired for Mr. Hammond, and was shown np stairs, into the front room, and there saw a person calling himself Mr. Hammond—the prisoner is the person—if it is not the same person it is one just like, him—he asked me who I was—I told him I was James Humphreys—he said he wished me to produce the note, and then he should see which it was that had come, because he had written to several—I gave him the note—he said he had got business to do at Oxford and in London, and he should want me to collect bills and likewise to look after his horse and chaise—he said he was in Oxford some times and sometimes in London, but his residence was in Oxford—I told him I could not take the situation because he said he wished me to go to live at Oxford—he said he would rather I would see him again to morrow, he should like me to take his situation—he said, "I rather like your appearance, and if you will come to-morrow morning I have a few little jobs for you to do, if you don't mind undertaking them"—I then left—that was all that passed that day—I was with him perhaps six minutes—he—had his hat on during this conversation—he was sitting when' I went in, but he was standing part of the time—I went again next morning about 10 o'clock—he was not in—I waited for him in the passage—he came in in a few minutes—he went up stairs first and asked me to wait a minute—he afterwards called me up stairs—I had told him on the first occasion where I had been living, but that morning I told him I had made up my mind not to undertake the situation—he then asked if I would mind doing a few little jobs for him, and asked me to go to the Euston Station to fetch him luggage, a portmanteau and a carpet bag, coming from Bath, I believe—he said, "You know my name, you can ask; for Mr. Hammond's luggage"—I went and there was no luggage for him there—they said I had better go to the luggage department at Camden-town, which I did, but did not find any—I then went back to the prisoner—I found him waiting for me—I told him I could not find any luggage for Mr. Hammond—he said he did not know how it was that it was not there, it ought to have been there; however, it did not signify, he must send again—he then asked me if I would go to Lombard-street foot him, to take a cheque—I said yes—he gave me the cheque—this produced is it—I was to take it to. Smith and Sons, or Smith and Payne's, in Lombard-street, and get 91 l .—he told me to get so much in notes and so much in gold I forget what it was exactly, and bring it back to him—he said, "I suppose, you have not had your dinner"—I said, "No, sir"—he said, "I will give you sixpence, and you can have it before you come back, as I have act got the wherewith here to provide it for you"—I then took the cheque to Smith, Payne, and Smith's, the bankers, in Lombard-street, and presented it at the counter for payment—it was refused—I was taken into the; bank, and from there to Messrs. Mullens, the solicitors—I made a communication to them—I was detained there while they made inquiry about my character, and I was then released—I did not go back to the prisoner—on 5th April, I was taken by Mr. Forrester to the House of Detention (I had previously given a description of the person from whom I had the cheque)—I was taken to the doors of different cells, and was desired to look in each cell as I

passed—two servants of the House of Detention were with us; one went before and opened the door, and the other came behind—I looked into each cell as I passed—I looked into twenty or thirty, it might be—I had passed all the cells except the last one, and after I had passed the servant said, "Have you seen any one that you know I" and I said "The last one that I passed was something like him"—the prisoner was in the last cell—the officer then said, "You have passed them all"—a day or two afterwards I went to Marlborough-street police court—I there saw the prisoner—I recognized him immediately upon his being brought into Court—I now believe him to be the man.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you any doubt? A. Well, I do not feel to have any doubt—I have no doubt but what he is the man—I saw him on three occasions at the house in Oakley-crescent; the first time for five or six minutes, the second time for about the same, and the third not so long—he had a hat on and he had spectacles on, white ones—once he had not got them on, but he put them on when I went into the room—he was a minute or two without them; he went to the window, took them out, and put them on—I solemnly believe him to be the man—I went with Forrester to the House of Detention for the purpose of identifying him—Mr. Mullens was not with me—Forrester did not give me any clue or hint—the gaolers told me not to stop at the cells, but to look and pass on—there was only one person in each cell—the gaoler did not say when I had passed the last cell but one, "You have passed him"—he did not say so till I had passed them all—I said there was no one I could identify, with the exception of the last man, and he was something like the man—I do not believe the gaoler said, "You have passed him," before I said that—after we had passed them all, I believe he said, "That is all, have you seen him?"—he said "You have passed him," when I came to the end—it was then that I said "The last man was something like him"—I said if Iwas compelled to swear to the man, I would not say it was him, by the time I had seen him—on leaving the prison, I believe I told Forrester I had seen them all, but there was but one there that was like him—I do not recollect saying, "My impression is I have not seen the man"—I will not swear I did not—when I saw him at Marlborough-street he was in the dock—I had then heard of his being committed on another charge—I then said he was the man—I have never mentioned before to-day that the man I saw at Oakley-crescent had spectacles on—I told Mr. Mullens so early in the case—I did not say so at the Mansion-house—I did not repass the cells at the House of Detention, after having once looked into them.

MR. SLEIGH . Q. About what is the size of these cells? A. About as far as from me to the door—they are light—each prisoner got up as the gaoler opened the door and said, "Come to the front"—they faced me—their back was towards the window of the cell—none of them were brought out of the cells—I recognised him directly at Marlborough-street—I had then been told that there was a man brought up charged with forgery—I was told that there were several, and that I should have a chance of seeing them—I was told that I should see a man who had been identified on another charge—before I looked into the cells of the House of Detention I had not been told that there was a man there like the description I had given—I was asked by Mr. Mullens to go and see some prisoners—I do not positively know whether or not he said there was some one like the man.

MARY ADELAIDE FENNELL . I reside with my mother at No. 6, Oakley-crescent, City-road—we let lodgings—about 18th or 19th Feb. a gentle man

came to engage our apartments—I showed him the two rooms on the drawing room floor, and he engaged them for three weeks, or it might be longer, at 10 s . a week—he wanted them from 10 o'clock in the morning till 3 in the afternoon—he was to sleep there, but not that night, as he had no luggage, but he said those would be his business hours, he should be out in the evening—he gave his name as Mr. Hammond—he then left—I think this was between 1 and 2 o'clock in the day—he was there about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—next day he came again—he then asked me for pen and ink—that was up stairs in the drawing room—I furnished him with, it, and I left him there—I do not know when he went out—I saw him again next day, but do not think I spoke to him—I do not remember how long he remained there—I opened the door for him, and I saw his back, when he went out, from the window—he did not come back to the house after that—he did not sleep at our house at all—I did not see him again until he was at Marlborough-street, about three weeks or a month afterwards—he was then at the police station, not before the Magistrates, but in a room with six or seven others—Mr. Mullens asked me if I could recognise the man, and I said I should not say anything about it then—I afterwards saw him at the Mansion-house at the bar—the prisoner is exactly like the man—to the best of my belief he is the man.

Croas-eaxvmined. Q. Were you the only person that saw him at your house? A. No; my sister saw him, but only for a minute—she is younger than me—she would not swear to him—she was taken to Marlborough-street and the Mansion-house to see him—Mr. Mullens took me to Marlborough-street—I told him that the man I had seen at our lodging appeared to be stouter—Mr. Mullens did not suggest that he had got thin in prison, nothing of the kind—I think I said he had got thinner since he had been in prison—the man at our place had a small piece of sticking plaster on his right cheek—I never saw him in spectacles—I did not open the door to Humphreys—did not see the prisoner at the time of his interview with Humphreys—I only saw him once that morning—he was very differently dressed to what the prisoner is now—I noticed his features—I did not exa mine him much—I had enough time to see his hair, it appeared to me lighter when he was in prison the other day—I do not think I have ever said that the person at our lodging looked more of a gentleman than the prisoner—he was more respectably dressed.

Mr. SLEIGH . Q. Looking at the prisoner now, do you believe him to be the person who took your lodging? A. He is very like the man.

COURT . Q. Do you believe him to be the man? A. I do—I saw him without his hat—I did not see Humphreys at all at our house—I heard of his being there, and another man also—there is no other No. 6 in our Cres cent—when I first saw the man he had a patch on his right cheek, and next morning he had one on his chin—I did not see any scar on his cheek or chin—when he came to take the lodging he was wrapped up close to the throat—the weather was very cold—when I was asked at Marlborough-street if I could recognise him I said "I shall say nothing now"—I said that because I did not wish to go before any court—I had not any doubt about him—I wished to save myself the annoyance of coming into court—I received half a crown deposit from the man—it was when he came next morning that I saw him without his hat—he said he came from Oxford.

GEORGE HENRY BOWELLS . I am not in any employ at present. I have been a servant—I was last in the service of the Rev. Mr. Powell, in Park-street Hyde-park. ( MR. BALLANTINE . submitted that in this case the evidence of act

other uttering was not receivable: such evidence could only be admissible for the purpose of shouting that the uttering charged, was wtih a guilty knowledge; the circumstances of the case were clearly sufficient to show that whoever uttered the 91 l . cheque, did so with a guilty knowledge, and therefore any further evidence could but operate by way of prejudice, and ought not to be received. The RECORDER . was of opinion that if the prosecution pressed it, he must receive it. MR. SLEIGH . considered it desirable that the jury should hear the evidence. )—On 8th March I put an advertisement in the Times newspaper, and in consequence of a reply to it, I went on 11th March to No 16, Stanhope-street, Regent's-park—I inquired for a person of the name of Bates—the note I received in reply to my advertisement was from a person calling himself Bates; and it said at the bottom that I was to take it back with me—I took it back with me, and I got to the place in Stanhope-street about half-past 11 o'clock on Tuesday, 11th March—the door was opened by a servant girl, and I was shown up to the first floor—I saw the prisoner—he asked me where I had been living, and what doing, and where I lived before I lived in London—I told him at Oxford—he said he knew several persons who lived at Oxford, and mentioned some of their names, and espe cially one at Sholam Hall, near Oxford—I had not at that time the letter I received—I had given it to the servant, and she carried it into the room without the envelope—the servant gave him the letter, and'he said I was to go and get the envelope which had been left below—I went and got it, and he engaged me for a week—he asked me to go to Camden-town station, and ask if there was any luggage come in the name of Bates—he said he had come from Rugby that morning, and he was to return to Rugby—I went to the Camden-town station, and did not find any luggage—I went back and told him, and he said perhaps it would come in the evening—he then asked if I was busy, if I had anything particular to do that afternoon—I said, "No;" Ald he said he was busy, and asked if I would go to Ransom's, and get a cheque changed for him—that was after I came back from the railway station—it was between 12 and 1 o'clock—this is the cheque he gave me ( looking at it )—it is for 87 l . 14 s .—he said I was to get four 10 l . notes, and the rest in money—I went to the bankers and presented the cheque, and got the money according to his direction—I took it back to Stanhope-street, and gave it to the pri soner—after giving him the money he said he would go the next morning and inquire my character, and let me know the result in the evening—he said he would write to me the next day whichever way it might be—he gave me some money to get some dinner—I forget the amount—I think it was a shilling or two—I left him, and on the next day I received this note, "March 12th, 1856, Mr. Bates, being called out of town unexpectedly, will not require George Bowells to call on him till his return from the country, when Mr. Bates will write"—the next day after receiving this I went to Ran som's, the bankers', and made a communication to them.

JURY . Q. What induced you to go to the bankers? A. His not calling for my character the next day; that induced me to go, as I thought there was something wrong.

MR. SLEIGH . Q. About a week afterwards did you see the prisoner? A. Yes, I met him in Oxford-street—he had another person with him—it was between 1 and 2 o'clock in the day—it was at the Hyde-park end, somewhere near Orchard-street—I was going down towards the Edgware-road and he was coming to Holborn way—I met him and passed him about ten yards—he looked round and nodded—I nodded again and went

to him—I asked him if his name was not Bates?—he said, "No; it is not; my name is Hawkins"—he then asked me if I was out of employ, and if I had advertised for a situation—to which I said, "Did you not answer my advertisement on Tuesday last?"—he said, "No"—he said, "I am sorry I have no money with me, or else I would give you some" (I had not asked him for any)—he said track was dull, and his friend answered to the same effect—when he said that his name was Hawkins, his companion said his name was Hawkins, and they came somewhere out of the country—he did mention the name of a place, but I do not remember it—before they left me, the prisoner shook hands with me, and they walked away towards Holborn—I followed them—they walked on as for as Duke-street, Manchester-square, and turned down there—before they got to Duke-street, the prisoner kept looking back to see if I was fol lowing—I saw them go down Duke-street—I made a communication to an officer, 46 D, at the top of Duke-street—he accompanied me down Duke-street, and we went down several squares, but we could see nothing of them—I had seen them both run off while I was speaking to the police man—I did not see anything more of the prisoner till Saturday, 5th April—about 7 o'clock that evening I was in Oxford-street, near the Edgware-road road—I then saw the prisoner, and his companion who was with him on the occasion when I saw him before—they were at the corner, they were coming towards Oxford-street, and I was going to the Edgware-road—I met them at the corner—I let them pass me, and when they had passed about twenty yards I turned back and followed them again—I followed them nearly 200 yards to the corner of a street—they stood there talking a few minutes, and turned back and went in to, a public house in Oxford-street—I spoke to a policeman named Smith, and as I was speaking to him they came up—the constable went to the prisoner, and said he must consider himself his prisoner on a charge of forgery at Messrs. Ransom's bank—I said, "I shall give you in charge on a case of forgery on Messrs. Ransom's bank"—he said to the officer, "It is all right, where am I to go to?"—his companion walked off towards the Edgware-road—the prisoner did not say anything till he was taken to Marylebone-lane station—he there abused me very much, called me a scoundrel and a vagabond, and made use of all sorts of abusive names—when he was taken he said he did not know where the bank was himself, and he did not know where Stanhope-street was—he was taken by the constable, in my company, to No. 16, Stanhope-street, the same evening by my desire—I had a very slight doubt about his being the person at the time when I took him—when we got to No. 16, Stanhope-street, we first saw the servant who had previously opened the door to me—the policeman asked if Mrs. Hall was at home—I think that was the name; and the prisoner said to the servant, before he allowed the police man to speak, "Am I the man that took your lodging?"—she said, "If you are not him you are his brother"—I cannot say what observation he made in reply to that, but he called me a d—vagabond, and held up his stick to me—the policeman said he must call in another constable to assist if he did not be quiet—the servant girl then feinted away—in looking at the prisoner now I. have not the least doubt that he is the person who handed me the cheque.

Cross-examined. Q. Are you in service now? A. No, I have not been in service since I answered the advertisement—I have been obliged to borrow money from my friends—I have received none from Mr. Mullens that I am aware of, but I have received money from Mr. Mullens's clerk—that is not

the friend I alluded to—I have had a good deal from friends—Mr. Mullens did not say he would not let me have any—his clerk let me have some—I have not been examined many times by Mr. Mullens, nor by his clerk, by neither of them—I communicated to the bankers that the prisoner said his name was Hawkins—I do not remember it—I do not remember telling any one that the prisoner had told me his name was Hawkins—I might have told the constable—I will not swear that I did—I know he gave the name of Hawkins at Marlborough-street—he gave it at the police station—when I went to communicate the circumstance to the bankers, I can swear I told some one there that he had given the name of Hawkins.

Q. You told me you did not remember it. A. It went out of my mind just at that minute; at least, I quite misunderstood yon—I went to the bankers immediately after meeting him—I swear that I told them he gave the name of Hawkins—I could not say that he had any whiskers at all, if he had, they must be very fair, they were scarcely discernible—I have never said that I was not positive that he was the man, I am positive he is the man—I never said that I was not positive to anybody—I told the inspector I had a very, very slight doubt—I do not remember saying that I was not positive he was the man—I do not remember using such words—I will not swear I did not—I will not swear that I did; I may have said it, and not recollected it—this man's hair is darker than the man's hair was who employed me, but he kept his hat on all the time—his features are the same—if he had lighter hair he must have had a wig—no one suggested to me about a wag—I did not mention to Mr. Mullens that he had a wig—I did not know that there was a necessity for it—I might have said it at the police court—I might have said it to the police constable—I did not say so to Mr. Mullens—I do not remember that I said so to the clerk—he took down what I had to say.

MR. SLEIGH . Q. Did the police Magistrate allow you 17 s . 6 d . for your expenses? A. Yes—I was not paid that at the office, but Mr. Mullens's clerk paid it me—I made a representation to him of my distressed condition, and he gave me 15 s . more—during the interview I had with the prisoner on the first occasion, he kept his hat on the whole time, that was what gave me the idea of his wearing a wig—I have no doubt that this is the man I saw in Stanhope-street, and the man I saw afterwards in Oxford-street—I am positive he is the man.

HANNAH BARTON . I am servant at No. 16, Stanhope-street, Regent's-park. In March last some one came to look at the apartments—I let him in, and showed him up stairs—on the following day I let Bowells in—the same man was there then—Bowells afterwards went out—I let him in a second time—he went out again, and I let him in a third time—the man was still there—I did not see Bowells leave again, or the man—I did not see the man again until one Saturday, about a month afterwards, when the policeman brought him to the house in a cab —I opened the door, Bowells was with them—as soon as the man came into the house Bowells asked me if that was the man that came to our house and took the apartments—I said to the prisoner, "If you are not the man, you are his brother"—he said, "I am not"—he became rather violent, and I fainted away.

Cross-examined. Q. I believe you have said that you did not believe he was the man? A. Yes—I cannot say it is the man—Miss Parker is here, she saw him.

MARY ANN PARKER . I reside at No. 16, Stanhope-street, Regent's-park. About 8th March a person came to hire my apartments—if the prisoner is

the person he is very much changed, he is a very different looking person—I cannot say that he is the same person.

RICHARD HOARE . ( policeman, D 46) I was on duty in Oxford-street on 13th or 15th March, when Bowells came and spoke to me—from what he said I went down Duke-street and James-street in search of some persons—I could not find them, or see any persons running—I am not confident of the day—it was in Wigmore-street that Bowells spoke to me, close to Duke-street.

ANDREW STEPHENS . I am cashier to Messrs. Bramah and Co.—they keep an account at Messrs. Hansom's—a gentleman in the establishment, named Gilbertson, generally signs the cheques—this signature is not his, or that of any person belonging to the firm—it is a very good imitation.

COURT . Q. Are you aware of ever having lost any cheques or forms? A. No—I know nothing of the prisoner.

GUILTY . of uttering. Aged 24.— Four Years Penal Servitude

545. WILLIAM ATTWELL , feloniously forging and uttering an order for the payment of 71 l . 10 s ., with intent to defraud.

MESSES. SLEIGH . and POLAND . conducted the Prosecution.

GEORGE RICHARD THORN . I am cashier at Messrs. Ransom's bank in Pall Mall—on 12th March I cashed this cheque for 71 l . 10 s ., purporting to he drawn by Messrs. Bramah and Co.—among the notes I paid for it was one 10 l . note, No. 54,167, dated 9th January—I do not know by whom the cheque was presented.

ANDREW STEPHENS . I am in the employ of Messrs. Bramah and Co., the locksmiths—this cheque is not signed by them or by any person in their employment—nor is this other cheque for 87 l . 14 s .

WILLIAM GOLDING . I am potman at the Prince of Wales tavern, Har-mood-street, Kentish-town—I know the prisoner—he has been a customer at our house—about the beginning of March he came for change for a 10 l . note—he gave it to Mrs. Suter, the landlady, she gave it to me—I crossed the road and got it changed at Mr. Hersant's, the butcher—he gave me ten sovereigns, which I took to Mrs. Suter, and she gave them to the prisoner—I knew him by the name of Hawkes, that is the name his brother goes by—I did not know him by name, until after this case.

Cross-examined by MR. MACENTEER , Q. Was he in the habit of coming to your house? A. Yes; for his brother, for beer and other things twenty or thirty times—he asked for the change perfectly openly—it was at the bar, between 11 and 12 o'clock; in the morning.

MILTON HERSANT . I am a butcher at No. 47, Harmood-street, opposite the Prince of Wales—Golding brought me a 10 l . note for change—it was before the 17th March, for I paid it away on the 17th, it might have been a week before but I think not quite so long—I gave him change for it—this is the note ( produced )—I put my mark on it—I paid it away to Messrs. Hill, at the New Cattle Market.

THOMAS COBDEN FARTHING . I am cashier at Messrs. Ransom and Ca's—I cashed this cheque for 87 l . 14 s ., purporting to be signed by Bramah and Co., on 11th March—I paid for it four 10 l . Bank of England notes, Nos. 45,967 to 45,970, dated 5th November, 1855, and 47 l . 10 s . in gold and silver.

JOHN SHELTON . I am barman to Mr. Chamberlain, who keeps the Sportsman public house, City-road—I have known the prisoner as a customer frequenting the house—on 12th March he came there with

another man and asked Mr. Chamberlain to change him a note—he went up stairs and got the gold and gave it to me to give the prisoner—I gave it him, and asked him his name—he said, William Smith—I asked him to write it on the note—he was not very sober—the man who was with him wrote Thomas Thompson, but I wrote on it myself the name he gave me, William Smith, and my master's initials—this ( produced ) is the note—it is No. 45,967—I noticed the number at the time.

Cross-examined. Q. What address did the prisoner give? A. No. 8, Cottage-lane, City-road—that is his correct address—I have known him about nine months.

EDWARD THOMAS GODDARD . I am shopman to Mr. Castle, a pawnbroker, in High-street, Camden-town—on 12th March last I changed this note, No. 45,970, for the prisoner ( produced )—he gave the name of William Smith, No. 81, John-street-road, which I wrote on the note—he had pledged a Geneva watch and chain in the morning and redeemed it in the afternoon with this note.

Cross-examined. Q. Did 700 know him before? A. No—I saw him again about a month afterwards—I see about 200 or 250 persons a-day—I saw him twice in that one day.

MR. SLEIGH . Q. Is it a common occurrence for persons to pledge their watches in the morning and take them out in the afternoon? A. Fre quently—I am sure the prisoner is the person who changed the note. ( The RECORDER . was of opinion that the evidence was too slight to go to the Jury. )

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT .— Saturday, May 31 st , 1856.

PRESENT —Mr. Ald. EAGLETON . and Mr. COMMON SERJEANT .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant and the Eighth Jury.

546. FERDINAND LENDEN , unlawfully obtaining, by false pre tences, 10 l .; with intent to defraud Henry Pearson Maples and others.

MR. ROBINSON . conducted the Prosecution.

NOEL ANTONIE GAUTIER . ( through an interpreter ). I am employed at the Western Railway at Paris—it is my duty to place tickets on the luggage that is registered to London. On 19th Jan. it was my duty to paste tickets on the luggage, and I did so—there was only me and the weigher to do so—I do not recollect pasting a ticket corresponding with this one ( pro duced )—I might possibly have pasted it, but I am not sure—if this bag ( produced ) had been brought, and registered for London, it would have been my duty to have pasted a ticket on it—the remains of the ticket on this bag correspond with the ticket I should have put on—I put a mark of a red cross on registered luggage—I put the mark where it would show most, on the front—here is the mark of the red cross on this bag—this is the way in which I should make the cross—I cannot swear to this—this is the way bill of that day, No. 13—I should enter the luggage that day—if I were absent it would have been the weigher's duty to enter it—I do not know whether I was absent.

Cross-examined by MR. LILLEY . Q. Do you put tickets of this kind upon all the luggage which comes by that railway from Paris to England?

A. Tickets of the same colour, but not the same number—I do not put the game number on all the luggage on a particular day—at that time, if it went up as high as 10, it was a great number—the numbers go from 1 to 80; when we finish No. 80, we commence No. 1 again—the same number would be on a bag if a person had travelled before from Paris to London, if the same number came in rotation.

FRANCOIS XAVIER DEPRAT . I am in the service of the Western Railway of France. This is the way bill of the train No. 13—there was only one registered article of luggage by that train on 19th Jan.—this is the way bin that refers to that register—there was only one piece of luggage, No. 28—according to this way bill, it ought to have been No. 28—on this bug here is a "2" and an "8"—I delivered this ticket to the person who had the luggage registered—here is a red mark chalked on this bag; that is the mark usually pat on registered luggage—at that time of year we were five or six days exhausting the numbers from 1 to 80.

Cross-examined. Q. How many trains in a day run from Dieppe and on to England? A. One a day—we use tickets of the same colour for every train leaving Paris for England, but not the same number—we use numbers from 1 to 80—I cannot tell from this way bill whether this luggage was a carpet bag—I have no recollection of putting on this number—it is so long ago, I cannot tell whether I gave it to a man or a woman—I do not think the second figure on this bag is part of ft 6 or part of a 3—it must be an 8—we know nothing about the Dover tickets—we used the same ticket for luggage which was to be conveyed to Newhaven—there are no other tickets for places ending in "es" of this colour—this was " Londres."

MR. ROBINSON . Q. Is it your habit to express the name of luggage? A. We never give it any particular name.

CHARLES POTTER . I am landing waiter and searcher at the Custom House, at Newhaven. I produce a book of the entry of two packages—this entry satisfies me that I examined two packages in the name of Lenden, on Sun day morning, 20th Jan.—the packages were opened by some one for me, and I examined them—I have the name of Lenden, because the person who claims the packages gives his name—as soon as the luggage is examined, I have nothing more to do with it—I make no distinction of registered or unregistered luggage—after I have done with it, it is delivered to the person from me—he may take it from the counter if he pleases—after that, persons may take registered luggage in the railway themselves.

Cross-examined. Q. You have no recollection whatever of the person or of the bag? A. No—I know nothing about the number of packages, except from this book—there were thirty-five packages delivered that day—a mark is placed on bags that have been examined—a ticket of this description, bearing the name of the boat, is placed on the bag, or whatever the luggage is, when it is brought up, and then the examining officer, which in this case was myself, stamps that ticket with a red mark, and after that it is counter stamped black—that ticket is fastened on with paste.

MR. ROBINSON . Q. What part is it put on? A. On a bag it is put at the bottom—it is put on to remain till it gets to the door, and very fre quently they drop off.

COURT . Q. Could a passenger obtain his luggage if registered before it comes to the Custom House? A. He could not.

JOHN LIPSCOMBE . I am clerk to Mr. Henry Pearson Maples. He has partners—he has an interest in the boat that runs to Dieppe—on 25th March, I received from the traffic manager of the Brighton Railway some

letters; amongst the rest was this, which is Lenden's letter, dated Chester 6th Feb., stating the loss of his bag—this ticket was enclosed in it—I received other letters beside—this is a letter written by Mr. Slight, secre tary to the Brighton Railway, dated 15th, 2nd, 1856—it was found at the prisoner's lodging, and on it is a copy of this letter—( This was dated "Chester, Feb. 23, 1856: To London, Brighton, and South Cocast Railway," describing the carpet bag and contents; signed "Lenden ")—every inquiry was made, and letters passed between us—I eventually received a list of the things, and the prices annexed—the sum he demanded of me was 19 l . 11 s .; he demanded that in one of his letters—I afterwards saw the prisoner, and he demanded it personally—I had a conversation with him—I cannot recollect the first day I saw him—it was about the middle of March he came to me, and told me what his name was, and what his business was—he said, "My name is Lenden; I have received letters from you which I have replied to; I come to speak about them"—I unfolded the letters and the ticket, and he said, "That ticket was the ticket I enclosed, and those were the letters I sent"—these are the letters I showed him in my office, and he said, "These are my letters"—one is 6th Feb., another 23rd Feb., 3rd March, 6th March, 12th March, and 16th March—this one contains a list of the articles, and the amount—it is signed, "Lenden," and directed to Henry Pearson Maples, Esq.—( read : "Sir, with reference to your letter of the 15th, I beg to send you the list of the contents of my carpet bag, with the value thereof. I have fixed the price by the use I made of them. You will oblige me if you will settle the matter in course of the week. I intend to set out on a journey, and will be obliged to buy many articles that I have lost")—The amount stated was 19 l . 11 s .—when I saw the prisoner, he said he had not seen his bag after he registered it in Paris, and paid a shilling, and a gentleman, who came from Dieppe with him told him at Newhaven, that his bag was outside the Custom House there, and he had better take it; and he replied, that having regis tered his bag for London, he had no control over it, nor could he touch it until he reached London; that he reached London, and had to go imme diately to Chester—I told him that every inquiry had been made, and we should still prosecute our inquiries respecting the bag—he came afterwards and gave me a list of the articles he had been obliged to purchase, and he asked me if I would pay him 10 l . on account of the 19 l . he had lost, and he would let the matter rest till the middle or end of May for the balance—I told him I could make no arrangement of that kind whatever—having made inquiries, I saw him again, and offered him 10 l . as a compromise, and he agreed to take it—I paid it him, and this is the receipt lie gave me,; it was written and signed by him in my presence—("Received of Mr. Maples, 10 l ., in full discharge for the loss of my carpet bag, &c.")—I heard nothing more of the bag—I am in the habit of seeing these tickets very frequently—I have examined this one on the bag, and in my judgment the number is 28 without hesitation—I was present at the prisoner's lodging when Carpenter took him into custody—I was there the whole time till he was taken away—I saw this letter found which, has been produced—I saw this bag there—I heard Carpenter tell him he was seeking for a bag that was lost, and he must look into his room—he passed into the room with the prisoner, took up the bag, and said, "This is the bag"—the prisoner said he never had that bag with him in Paris—Carpenter asked him why ho did not apply for his bag when he first reached London; he answered because he had to take a cab immediately, and go off to Chester—I saw this Diary found in his room, I believe it to be his writing—I have seen his

signature to these letters, and I saw him write in my office, a long paragraph.

Cross-examined. Q. You have spoken to one or two conversations; have you ever said anything about these conversations to any person not being at the police court, about his going to Chester, for one thing? A. Yes, I am quite sore I have—I have stated that he received the 10 l . by way of com promise—I did not tell him he would obtain 10 l . from the French Govern ment; decidedly not—I pledge myself that nothing of that kind occurred—nothing was said about his obtaining a large amount from another quarter; from the Packet Company—I represented the whole of the Companies on that occasion, and told the prisoner so—I will swear that—I did not pay the 10 l . in consequence of something that had been said to me by Carpenter—I paid the 10 l . before Carpenter knew that I had paid it—prior to the prisoner earing he never had the bag with him in Paris, Carpenter had said he was seeking a carpet bag which was lost, and this was the bag—the con versation had previously been directed to the carpet bag that was lost, and for which'he claimed recompense.

COURT . Q. Had you any conversation with him at his lodging about the particular bag for which he had received compensation? A. No.

MR. ROBINSON . Q. Carpenter was not employed in this till after you paid the 10 l .? A. No—I had not been in the prisoner's room two days before—I had been in the house, not in the room—I had seen the bag once, but never touched it.

JOHN CARPENTER . ( police inspector, Brighton Railway ). I was first spoken to about this matter on 15th March—I did not go into it till 15th or 16th March—I received some information, which induced me to go, on 17th April, to a beer shop in King William-street, where this bag was ultimately discovered—while I was there, a person came for Dr. Lenden's luggage—it was refused—the application was made the next morning, and the same application was made the next evening at 5 o'clock, and refused—I was in the house when the person came and made the application—he left, and went out when he got his answer, and I went out too—I went twenty or thirty yards, and saw the prisoner's head peeping round the wall of the steps leading down to Thames-street—the person who had applied for the bag went to him, and insisted on his going to give an order to the persons to have his luggage delivered—the prisoner stood for a minute, and the person said, "Come along," and he followed him into the beer shop, and told the landlord to let the gentleman have his goods—he was then going out, but I stopped him, and told him I wanted to speak to him up stairs in his room—I told him I was a police officer—he said, "Very well"—he went up into his room—I followed him, and told him I came respecting his having obtained 10 l . from the Brighton Railway Company, under pretence of his having lost this bag ( pointing to it )—I told him he need make no reply unless he chose, as I should most likely have to repeat it—he immediately said, "Oh, that is the way the railway people pay persons for the lose of their property"—I took the bag, turned it up, and showed him the bottom—I said, "This is the French ticket from Paris"—I pointed out to him the portions of the figures, which I told him were the remains of No. 28—he said, "That bag never was in Paris with me"—I also found this other little bag, with this strap t it—I said that he had passed through the Custom House at Newhaven, and there were entries there of his having passed through the Custom House with two bags—a gentleman who was there told him to say nothing—I

said, "You went away when you arrived at London-bridge; you never made any application for it; why did you not do so?"—he said, "I got into a cab , and was obliged to go away to Chester immediately"—I took him to the police station—he gave his name, but refused to give any address—he was then asked his address in Paris, and that he also refused—he afterwards said that he lived in some rue , which he named, in Paris—I took these letters, and this diary, and carpet bag, and this wearing apparel.

Cross-examined. Q. How do you know the letters that you found? A. I brought them to this Court—I found all these at the prisoner's lodging—I believe these straps were on this small bag at the time I found it, or they were lying by the side of it—I had been to that place one day before, but I had never been in the prisoner's room before that day—I never saw the carpet bag elsewhere before that day—I saw it that day before the prisoner was there—I had it in my hand, and examined it—Mr. Lipscombe was present, and also the landlord of the house—I did not know when I went that there was something due to the landlord—I knew it before I took the bag away—I knew it before I saw this man peeping round the corner—I heard some person, who said he was a solicitor, say he would pay it—the money was not paid by my advice, certainly not—when I had this bag first in my hand, I saw it about ten minutes—I examined it with the description I had given me, and found it corresponded with it—the room was locked of again.

— MACKIE . I was a fellow traveller with the prisoner from Paris to London—I was with him on board the steamboat—I believe I was the person principally associating with him—when we arrived at Newhaven I saw him—I believe we landed together—I believe we passed through the baggage warehouse together—I do not believe he said anything about his luggage—we went into the luggage place together—my impression is that he was the first person from me—I believe he had something slung round him—I think I saw a belt; I am not quite sure—I do not exactly recollect what luggage he had; it was luggage of some kind—it is my impression that he was showing something as part of his luggage—I left my luggage in the baggage warehouse—when we quitted the examination of the luggage, I believe the next place I saw the prisoner at was at the Lewes station; he left me there to go to Brighton—I was in a first class carriage; he was on the platform—he wished me good bye, and asked if madam was better—I do not know that he was going to Brighton—I did not see him do anything with a key at the baggage place—he exposed his luggage—I do not know whether it was fastened with a lock, or what it was.

Cross-examined. Q. When did you first join the prisoner? A. On board the steamer—I came from Paris—I did not see the prisoner till I arrived at Dieppe—all the packages constituting my luggage were registered—I never travelled that road before—I did not see the prisoner's luggage on board the steamer—I am not able to say what number of packages he had—other persons besides me were in conversation with the prisoner—he was no acquaintance of mine prior to that voyage—I never saw him before—just after leaving the harbour my lady became ill, and he very kindly produced some spirit, and put it on her forehead, or gave her some—I do not know whether it was brandy, I did not taste it.

MR. ROBINSON . Q. Did you remain at Dieppe? A. I remained about ten minutes—I went into a coffee shop—I paid some sous for having my luggage registered in Paris for London direct—I did not suppose I should

see it again, but I saw it at Newhaven—my luggage was one large trunk and I think a little bonnet box—I know I paid something at the time my luggage was weighed.

JURY . Q. Had the prisoner a carpet bag with him when he left you at Lewes? A. My impression is that he had something in his hand, but whether it was a carpet bag I cannot say—he did not come close to the carriage that I was in.

GEORGE EDWARD THOMPSON . I am ten years old; I live with my father in Craven-street, Strand. I recollect the prisoner coming to our house in Jan.—it was on the day before we were to go to school—I do not remember the day—it was about the middle of Jan.—I have seen this paper before ( looking at it ), it was sent to my papa after I went to school—I came home from school before Christmas—we were to have six weeks' holidays—we were to go to school on a Wednesday—the day we were to go to school the prisoner came—he asked if I was going to school, and if not he asked if he should come and teach me private lessons in the house—he said if my mamma would give him a room he would teach me and my two sisters—that was agreed to by my mamma—he went down to Hoddesden on Tuesday—he said he was going to get his things, and he would come back on Wednes day—I had known him before—he was the French master at Hoddesden—he came on the Wednesday—I saw this bag on the Thursday, the day he began to teach us—I was in the room every day, he used to keep this bag on the sofa in the room—it was a bag exactly like this—I have handled it, I used to take the things out of this bag, and put them on the table for him—he taught me in his room—I saw the bag a good while; while he was there.

Cross-examined. Q. Are you able to say positively whether this is the bag? A. It is exactly like it—he had a portmanteau with him—I did not see that he had a small bag with swaps—he brought his things in a cab —he came about 9 o'clock.

COURT . Q. How long did he continue to teach you after the Wednes day day? A. About a fortnight.

GEORGE BENCHARD . I have examined the entries in this diary with this translated copy—I find them perfectly correct—( some of these entries were ready as follows : "1856, Saturday, Jan. 19th, departed from Paris. Mon day, 21st, arrived in London. Wednesday, 23rd, went to Thompson. Wednesday, 30th, went to Chester.")

MR. LILLEY . called

AUGUST MABEE . ( through an interpreter ). I am a German. The prisoner is not a German—I have known him since 1849, or 1850—I was in Paris on 18th, 19th, or 20th Jan. last—I saw the prisoner, and spoke to him—it was through me that he came to London—I had no particular business with him—I recollect the time at which he left Paris—I accompanied him to the railway station at Paris—I had heard him say the evening before that he wanted to buy himself a travelling pocket for his journey; by a travel ling pocket I mean a carpet bag—I offered to lend him my travelling pocket—I lent it him—I call this ( looking at the carpet bay ) a travelling pocket—this is not the one I lent him, it was a similar one to this—I took it to the railway station—I saw the prisoner had several of his packages in his dress ing gown doubled up, clasped together—I helped him to put them into the bag—the bag was not quite fall; not over full—after the things were put into the carpet bag, he locked it, and the prisoner himself gave it to the employé who received it at the railway—the prisoner had my bag, and another beside it, and a courier's bag round his neck—he registered only one bag, the bag

I had lent him—that is not the bag that I lent the prisoner—this is not mine—my bag was as large as this, or nearly so—it was in squares of a lighter colour—it had three pockets, and two divisions inside.

Cross-examined by MR. ROBINSON . Q. What are you? A. A distiller and farmer—I have distilled in France, Belgium, and Germany—I am not established in any business—I get money sent from home, at Stettin—it is one year and eight months since I was in Stettin—I have received money from home during that time—I received a letter from the son of the prisoner, and through that I knew he was in Paris—I was in Valenciennes when I received the letter through the prisoner—I wanted to come to London, in hopes of getting something to do in the distillery—I was living in Paris, in Rue d'Amsterdam, near the railway—I do not know the number, it was 20 or 30—I lived alone—I was a lodger—I do not know the name of the persons I lodged with—I lodged with them two days—the prisoner was lodging in the Rue de la Paix—I remained two days after 19th Jan.—I then went to Valenciennes—I do not know exactly when I arrived in London; either in March or April—the prisoner fetched me from the station when I arrived, and took me to the public house where the things were found—I could pay my lodging at the public house.

Q. Will you swear that the landlord did not detain what little you had for payment of the lodging in King William-street, and that he did not say that he would turn you out of the house unless you paid, and then the prisoner became security for you? A. Yes, the arrears that there was—the evening before the prisoner was taken, the landlord threatened to keep my things, to pay, the arrears—I was not the person who went twice to the house in King William-street to ask for the prisoner's things.

Q. Will you swear that you did not go to that house on 17th April, and demand Lenden's things, and were they not refused you? A. I do not know the dates—on the day before the apprehension of the prisoner, I took a letter to the house and demanded London's things—I did not go again on the morniog of the 18th—the carpet bag I lent to the prisoner was the only one I had—I had a courier's pocket besides—I was before the Magistrate when the prisoner was examined—I have been to Newgate every day to see him—I am now living over Westminster-bridge—I do not know the name of the street—I do not know the name of the person I am living with.

MR. LILLEY .: Q. Was the place at which you lodged at Paris an hotel? A. A furnished lodging—I lodge opposite Astley's Theatre, at the first coffee house on the left hand over Westminster-bridge—I was not examined before the Magistrate when I was at the police court—I have my passport and certificate at my lodging—what I have said about the carpet bag is true—I have not said anything in order to favour the prisoner.

COURT . Q. When before the Magistrate, was any attorney appearing for the prisoner? A. Not that I know of—I do not know that any one pot any questions to the witnesses for him—when the prisoner was at the rail way he had one carpet bag registered—he took the other with him into the railway carriage, and also a pocket that he had on his shoulder—I hardly know what he had in the carpet bag that he took into the railway carriage, but he had some dirty linen, which he took out of my bag and put in his.

MR. ROBINSON . Q. Did not this gentleman ( Mr. Bickley ) appear before the Magistrate? A. Yes.

GEORGE BICKLEY . I am an attorney, and live in Devereux-court—I acted as attorney for the prisoner before the Magistrate on the third occasion—I saw the last witness outside, but I could not understand from him what

He could prove—I heard the Magistrftte say he should send the prisoner for trial, and, not knowing what the witness could prove; I did not think it prudent to call him.

GUILTY . Aged 52.— Confined Twelve Months.

THIRD COURT .— Saturday, May 31 st , 1856.

PRESENT —Mr. Ald. CUBIT .; Mr. Ald. EAGLETON .; and MICHAEL. PBENDERGAST , Esq.

Before Michael Prendergast, Esq., and the Seventh Jury.

547. HENRY CHARNELL , WILLIAM MARTIN , JOHN SALE , CHARLES PESHELL , and JOHN TILLETT , stealing, in the dwelling house of Richard Trott Fisher , the master or Charnell, 1 silver tea kettle, and a variety of articles of plate, value 500 l .; his property.

MR. GIFFARD . conducted We Prosecution.

RICHARD TROTT FISHER . I live at No. 30, Eaton-place, in the parish of St. George's, Hanover-square. Charnell was my butler—on the night of the 4th April I went to bed about half past 12 o'clock—I went by accident into my study, got hold of a book, and sat there for half or three quarters of an hour—the house was perfectly quiet when I went to bed—I supposed that every body was in bed—my dressing room is in a situation that I can hear the least talking or noise (I do not make a practice of going to bed after the servants, I generally go at about 11 o'clock)—about 7 clock in the morning in consequence of something a female servant said to me, I went down and saw Charnell—I should have been up soon after 8 o'clock, in the ordinary course—Charnell met me on the stairs, and began in rather an extravagant way to ask that I would forgive him—there were two maid servants stand ing there, and I told him to go into the drawing room and say what he had to say—he said, "I hope you will forgive me, I am sure you never will forgive me"—I said, "Just go into the room, and I will oome and speak to you"—I went in and shut the door, and he said that he had been called out at night soon after he got into bed, a relation came or had sent for him, that a cousin of his was dangerously ill, that he got up, went away at 12 o'clock, was absent two hours, and when he came back he found that the plate was taken—I said, "Why, I was up myself at 12"—he said that it might been twenty minutes or half past 12, that the husband of his cousin had come and called him up—I went and dressed, saw him afterwards, and asked if he had gone for the police—he said that he had not—he told me after wards that his bed was put down, he sleeps in the pantry, and he told me that his watch was lying on the bed—the plate was kept in a very strong plate closet, built on purpose, fire proof, and opening out Of his pantry, and there are two strong chests to keep what is not used in, and which I believe are in Court ( produced )—there is a fire proof door which opens out of this butler's pantry, where he sleeps, and the two chests are in the closet; in which to send the plate backwards and forwards—they are fitted up for each parti cular article—the keys of the chests, as well as of the closet, were in the possession of the butler—I gave him the keys and the entire control of all the plate—I have no reason to believe that there were marks on the cheats before—the last time I saw them was when I sent them up from the country

to the silversmith's, and they came from him to the prisoner, Charnell, in December—it was his duty to sleep in the room where the plate closet was—I dressed on the ground floor, and came out immediately, went to the police station, brought a policeman, and examined the place down stairs with him, and examined the locks—I think Charnell was present—he told me that he had locked the door of his pantry when he went out, and took the key with him—he spoke to me so often that I cannot exactly recollect the time—he said that he had locked up the key of the plate closet, a large key, and deposited it in a side press, a wooden fixture in the room, with a very weak lock, which had been shoved open, and the key taken out, and he found it in the plate closet—he also said that he had locked up the plate chests, and had taken those keys with him, that he found the door of the pantry broken open when he came home—I asked him if there was any appearance of anybody having been in the house—he said that there was not, and that he went out by the area door, and took the key of that door and the key of the area in his pocket—I said, "Then who can have taken the plate?"—he said, "That is what puzzles me, Sir"—I said, "Of course it was taken either by you or some of your friends"—that was before I knew that he had had any friends—he said, "None of my friends would do it"—afterwards, in my room, before the policeman, he told me the address of his cousin who had sent for him, and I told the policeman to take it down—I then said, "A cousin may be a near or a distant relation, and it is very strange to send for you"—I cross-examined him about the nature of the cousin's illness—he said, "She is the only relation I have," either "in the world," or "in Lon don," I do not know which—I said, "How is she related?"—after a good deal of hesitation, he said, "She is the daughter of my mother by a former marriage"—I said, "Why, that is your sister"—he said no more, that seemed to embarrass him—he seemed surprised to hear that she proved to be his sister and not his cousin—Thurstell afterwards went away, and about two or three hours after he went away I was reading the paper in my study (it was about 11 o'clock), and Charnell came in and said, "Sir, I will not conceal the truth any longer; what I have told you is false; I went out last night with some friends"—I took down this note of what he said at the time ( produced )—he told me that he went out with some friends, and mentioned the names of Peshell and Martin, who lived at No. 7, Princes-street: that Martin had called in the morning about 11 o'clock, and told him that there was a ball that night at Willis's rooms, that he did not like to ask me to go out, but after a good deal of persuasion he consented to go after I had gone to bed; that Martin told him he would let Tillett know, and that he wrote to Tillett himself to meet them at the ball, and Martin put the letter into the post (I think he must have mentioned that Peshell was to go to the ball, as I have his name on the top of my paper)—he said that Tillett came unexpectedly to him about 10 o'clock, and Martin also; that they waited in the pantry together till I had gone to bed—he then locked up all his things, took the keys in his pocket, went out with Martin and Tillett, and met Peshell in the street, just outside; that they three took a cab at the end of the street and went to Willis's-rooms, but they were not open; they then went to Evans's, and heard a song or two, waited till it was getting late, then came home, and arrived about half-past 4 o'clock—I do not think he told me where he parted with the others, but he said that they all four were together at Evans's-rooms—he made no mention of the prisoner Sale to me—he said that they went out by the area door, and locked both the house door and the area door—I asked him how the hall door was found—he said that it was

unbolted but the latch lode and the other lock were both sprung, as they would be if anybody had gone out—that was the state of things when he came back—he had not a latch key, I have one.

Cross-examined by MR. MAC ENTEER . Q. You say that when he first came in he appeared in a state of great excitement? A. Yes; I never saw him so excited before; but I was never robbed before—he came into my service on let Dec. last—I had a character with him from Mr. Fuller, a clergyman in my parish, who had only had him a month—he gave me the character which he had with him—I have communicated with several of his former masters since—I cannot exactly say that the inquiries were satisfac tory, but I do not wish to say otherwise—he lived for a year and a half at Mr. Kemp's, who seemed quite satisfied—one of the prosecutors afterwards found a dozen and a half of old silver spoons, a pint tankard, and a tray which had been taken out and left—with that exception all the plate was gone—I cannot form an estimate of the weight of it—a great deal of it had been presented to me—it was worth, I believe, 500 l . or 600 l .—there is an entrance by the area to my house; it has a lock, and with that gate and one door, you can gain admission to the house—he told me that he had not spoken to a policeman when he found it out—I said, "How did you know when you came home that the people were not in the house?"—he said, "I looked into the dining room"—I said, "Did you look into the drawing room?"—he said, "No"

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY . Q. Have you made inquiry about the character of Peshell? A. Yes; his master called on me—he been a high character; and I hope his master will be here to-day; here is a letter from him giving him an excellent character ( produced )—I asked Chamell why he did not call me when he found out the state of the home—he said that he did not like to disturb me.

Cross-examined by Mr. COOPER . Q. Have you made inquiry about Tillet's character? A. I believe his master has a good opinion of him; I know nothing about it, except that he is a respectable man.

THOMAS THURSTELL . ( police inspector V ). On Saturday, 5th April, about half-past 7 o'clock, I was fetched to Mr. Fisher's—I examined the premises, but found no trace of any entry being effected at any part of the house—I examined the area gate, the door leading from the area into the house, and the front door, but there was not a single mark on either of them—I had the lock of the door leading from the area into the passage, taken off by a smith, but could discover nothing to show that it had been tried—in the butler's pantry I found a small plate chest which bore marks of having been forced—I have examined the larger chest carefully, but there are only very slight marks on it—I am of opinion that those marks were not made then, but that the chest was actually open—there are two locks on it, and both were in perfect order—these ( produced ) are the keys; they were given to me by Charnell among other keys on a ring—the door of the plate closet was perfectly sound—it is a large iron door, about the size of one of the doors of this Court—it could not have been broken open without a sledge hammer—the proper key was in the door, and it locked it.

COURT . to R. T. FISHER . Q. Where was the plate in ordinary use kept? A. In the butler's pantry. He took it down, and put it away—I believe there is a witness who will speak to his putting it away that night—that was all gone, and a great deal which was not in common use also—the chests are fitted up with green baize shelves on purpose to receive plate—I expect that all the articles I am not in the habit of using were looked up in the large

chest—that is what ought to have been done—nobody but himself would go into his room—his habit was always to lock his pantry door when he went out.

MR. GIFFARD . Q. Did you find some plate in a slide under the larger chest? A. Yes; the old spoons—the goblet appeared to hate been left by mistake—Charnell told me that he had left his own watch and chain on his bed, and that they were taken at the same time; that he took them off when he went out, and left them on the bed—he sleeps in the pantry.

THOMAS THURSTELL . ( continued ). There were several marks on the pantry door, out not sufficient, in my opinion, to make an entry—the box of the lock had not been broken, and when I locked the door, I could not push it open—the box of the lock would make considerable noise in breaking it—few days after the robbery, I am not sure of the date, I called at No. 7, Princes-road, Pimlico, and saw Peshell, Martin, and Sale—I do not think I was in uniform, but they knew I was an officer—constable Fells, who had been there before introduced me as his inspector—Martin said that a friend of Peshell's, a person named Fisher, but whose real name turns out to be Holt, called on him on the Friday, and stated that there was to be a ball at William's-rooms, Brewer-street, Golden-square, that he, Martin, went to 30, Baton-place, and asked Charnell if he would go, and returned in the evening, saying to Peshell that Charnell would go, and had written to invite a friend to accompany him—that friend was not Sale, it was Tillett, a servant at Westbourne-terrace, Hyde-park—he said that later in the evening Sale called on them, and they asked him to accompany them to the ball, and they all went together to 30, Baton-place, at half past 10 o'clock, that Martin went into the house, and Sale and Peshell remained outside, but Gharnell came to the area gate and called then in; that they were very reluctant to go in, thinking it improper, but were overruled by Charnell who pressed them—they stated that before they got to the house they found that Tillett was there; that they waited a considerable time, that Charnell left the pantry frequently to see if Mr. Fisher had retired to bed; that they became very impatient, add at length Charnell said that it was all right, that Mr. Fisher had gone to bed, and they then left the house together by the area door and steps—Sale and Peshell added, that on leaving the house, they fancied that they heard a rustling of a dress, apparently on the stairs leading to the upper part or the house, and told Charnell that they thought it was not all right, and wished him not to leave home, but he replied, that there was nothing to fear, and he had frequently gone out without Mr. Fisher knowing anything about it; that they got into a cab at the comer of Eaton-place and Belgrave-street, and were driven to Brewer-street, Sale stating that he left them there, he having previously stated to the others that he could not go to the ball, as he was not properly dressed, and that his ball days were over, and he had no desire to go, but was driven there, it being part of his way home; that when they found the room closed they went to the other Willis's-rooms at St. James's, thinking that the ball might be there, found those rooms closed also, and then called at several public houses and coffee shops about the Haymarket—(Charnell mentioned Evans's, but I do not know whether the others did or not, that is in Covent-garden)—that Peshell left them in the Haymarket, they had some little dispute about taking some more refresh ment, and Martin, Charnell, and Tillett walked together to we end of St. Jaraes's-street, where Tillett left, and Martin and Charnell came on their way home to the corner of Arabella-row, Pimlico) Martin going home, and

Charnell to his master's house, Peshell stated that he had only been in bed a very few minutes when Martin arrived, and shortly after that Charnell came to the house and stated that his master's house had been broken open during their absence and the plate stolen—he was let into the house by Peshell, who slept in the front parlour, and Martin in the back room, and as soon as they were both acquainted with it, Martin stated that Charnell wished him to write a note for him to Mr. or Mr. Gilbert, forming an excuse for his absence on that night.

COURT . Q. From the course of the conversation, did you ascertain from him that Charnell made his proposal to Martin to write at the time he gave information of the robbery? A. Yes; and Martin refused, saying that he would have nothing to do with writing, but thai he might write it himself if he chose, there were writing materials there; that Charnell wrote a note, wished Martin to carry it for him, but he objected, telling him that he was tired, and that he had better put it in his pocket, and the delay would not be much longer—I think that was about the whole of the conversation.

Cross-examined by MR. MAC ENTEE . Q. You say that some plate was found in the large chest? A. Yes; that was covered by a slide there were marks of violence on the lid of the small chest, if it had been broken open certainly—there were marks on the pantry, door—the closet door had not been tampered with, at all—the proper key was in it when I arrived—I know nothing about it being taken out of the press—the area keys were ordinary ones.

Cross-examined by MR. PAREY . Q. When you saw these parties, did they give the elaborate account you have described in an unembrrassed manner? A. I thought so—the Monday after the robbery was, I believe, the first time I saw Sale—Fells saw them before me—I did not go by appointment, they did not expect me—Sale did not live there—the inter view lasted half or three quarters of an hour—I saw them three or four times, still pursuing my inquiries to detect the perpetrators or the robbery—I took Sale on the evening of the 24th by the direction of Mr. Fisher, he insisted on it—I did not suggest to him that any of them should be taken, I merely stated the facts—it is my duty to take persons in custody, against whom there is a case—it is my duty to take a party who I consider criminal—I took Sale a fortnight afterwards, on the 24th, at his own lodging—I knew the address of all of them, and they knew that I was pursuing these inquiries—Sale is a butler out of place—Martin is a butler—Peshell is a foreigner; he told me that he expected a situation at the Lord Warden hotel at Dover, and gave me that address—I saw him again, and he told me that he had got it—I took Sale on the morning of the 25th April, about half past 12 o'clock—I also took Martin on the 25th at his lodging, about midnight—I waited for him to come home—Peshell was apprehended at the Lord Warden hotel—all that was done; by Mr. Fisher's instructions, he was determined that they should be taken in custody—I told Sale that I was sorry I was obliged to apprehend him—I searched their lodgings—I made certain inquiries of William Ault, a butler out of place, and mentioned the result to Mr. Fisher—these inquiries were made in consequence of the very minute information that Martin and these three parties gave me as to their movements on that evening—I know Brewer-street, Golden-square—I know a place called Willis's-rooms there, they are sometimes taken by one individual, who arranges for a ball to take place at intervals of several weeks—I know Evans's in Covent-garden.

MR. GIFFARD . Q. You said that Mr. Fisher directed you to take them;

do you know bow he came to do that? A. I believe there was a commu nication with Mr. Paynter, the Magistrate—I know that Mr. Paynter and Mr. Fisher had interviews, and the result was, that I took the parties into custody—I have seen Ault here to-day, he is not subpœnaed on the part of the prosecution—the keys of both these boxes were given to me by Charnell—he showed me the cupboard where the key of the closet was deposited—that was within the pantry—there were marks on the pantry door as if it had been attempted to be broken open, but had not been—I think it was opened with a key, the lock was in good condition.

MR. COOPER . Q. If the box was locked, it must have been unlocked by a key, because there was no force apparently applied to it. A. Yes—but if it had been left unlocked, it would require no key—I heard Charnell say that all the plate which had been in use that evening was in the closet, within the iron door; that is a recess two or three yards deep, which opened out of his room.

COURT . to MR. FISHER . Q. Did Charnell say anything to you abort going to the house or lodging of any one else when he found out that the robbery had been committed? A. No.

HENRY FELLS . ( policeman, A 279). On the morning of 5th April, in consequence of information I received, I went to No. 39, Somens-street, Portman-square, about 9 o'clock, and found a person named Gilbert—he did not at that time give me any letter—on the same morning I took Charnell, and on the way from the station to the police court, between 11 and 12 o'clock, after the charge had been taken, he said, "What can we do?"—I said, "I really do not know, unless you can give us any assistance"—he said, "I left my master's house about half past 12 o'clock last night, in company with four other men; we took a cab and drove to Brewer-street, Golden-square; one of the men, who was a perfect stranger to me, left us there; we went to Willies-rooms and found them closed" (that is in Brewer-street, it is called Little Willis's;) "we then went to Willis's-rooms in King-street, St. James's, and finding them closed we went back to the Haymarket, when Peshell, who felt tiffed at some little circumstance which happened, left us; we afterwards went to the corner of St. James's-street, when Tillett left us, and myself and Martin returned as far as Arabella-row, where Martin left me"—after he had been remanded that day, Saturday, 5th, I went again to Gilbert's, on the Monday morning, about 9 o'clock, and received from him this letter ( produced )—on 2nd May I took Tillett in custody, and he stated the same as nearly as possible as Martin and Peshell had to the inspector—I asked him for the letter which Charnell had sent him to invite him to the ball, and he gave it to me—he said that he received it about tea time on Friday, 4th April.

Cross-examined by MR. MAC ENTEER . Q. Did you ask Charnell where Sale lived? A. No, he told me that Sale was a perfect stranger to him—I may have made inquiry about it—his answer about being a stranger was not in reply to my asking him where Sale lived—Charnell was in custody when I did ask him—it was on some occasion when he was brought up on remand—I cannot swear that he said anything at all about him.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY . Q. Did Peshell tell you that after the tiff he joined them again in the Hay market? A. Yes, and saw Charnell there again.

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER . Q. When did you first see Tillett? A. On Saturday, 5th April—it was then that he made the statement—I asked him first what account he could give of the robbery which had taken

place, and told him that, during the night they were out the whole of Mr. Fisher's plate was stolen—he said that he was not aware of it, and was very sorry it had occurred—after he made the statement I left him, and went to him again a few days afterwards—I have not seen his master—on the second occasion I asked him for the letter which he had received from Charaell, and he at once produced it, enclosed in an envelope—I took it away—he did not show me a letter on the first occasion—three or four days after this second occasion I went to him again, and asked him how it was that the letter did not bear the proper date (I had found out that it appeared to be an envelope of an improper date)—he said that he supposed it was the envelope of another letter which he had received, and went and hunted for it, he answered all my questions fairly—I did not go with him to hunt for it—I might have done so—I have heard from his fellow servant that he has lived three years with his master, and bears the highest character for honesty, and has the entire care of the plate—he was taken into custody, I think, a fortnight after that—it was two or three weeks after the robbery—I found him at his master's house every time I went, except once, when he had gone out with his master.

MR. GIFFARD . Q. Did he ever give you any envelope which bore the same date as the letter? A. No—( The letter was written from Eaton-place; the post mark was March 22 nd , 1856; addressed, "Mr. Tillett, No. 80, Westbourne-terrace, Hyde-park" inviting him to meet the writer at a ball at Willis's Rooms, Brewer-Street, that evening at half-past 11 o'clock, and signed , " HARRY .")

JAMES GILBERT . I received a letter about half-past 2 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon, which I afterwards gave to Tillett—I cannot say the date—it was on the same day that Tillett came to me, early in the morning, about 9 o'clock—( Read: Post mark 10 th April , 5, 1856. "Mrs. Gilbert, No. 37, Somerset-street, Portman-square. No. 30, Eaton-place. My dear Mrs. Gilbert,—I am distressed beyond all measure, as I was out Friday night without permission, and what was my distress when I came home to find some one had broken in the house and stolen all our plate! Fancy my distress! Now, what have I to say? Pray let me rely on you to say you sent for me, and do you pass as my cousin; I will say you was taken very dangerous ill, and sent for me about 11 or 12 o'clock, or between that and 12. Now, do let me trust this to you and Gilbert, as there is no other friend would say this. What am I to do? No friends, character, or place to go to! What am I to say when they come down stairs this morning, Satur day? Do carry this out for me, if there should be any inquiries about Your very sincere friend, H. Charnell.")

JAKE FENNER . I am cook in the service of Mr. Fisher. I have seen Martin at Mr. Fisher's—he may have been there twice a week, and Tillett two or three times a week—they visited Charnell—on Thursday night before this happened, the servants sopped at 9 o'clock, and at a quarter to 10 o'clock I went across the pantry into the kitchen to turn off the gas, and saw Tillett, Charnell, and M'Gavin in the pantry—at a little after 7 o'clock next morning, Charnell came to me in the kitchen, and asked me if I had heard what had occurred—I said, "Yes"—he said that he had been out to see a cousin who was ill—I asked him if he knew anything of the plate going—he said, "No"—I asked him if he went for a policeman—he said that he went on the area steps at 2, 3, and 4 o'clock, and could not see one—I asked him why he did not leave the house, and go and see for one—he said that he was afraid of being suspected of the robbery—I asked him

if he had told Mr. Fisher—he said, "Yes"—he said afterwards, about 9 o'clock, that he did not like to disturb Mr. Fisher so early.

Cross-examined by MR. MACENTEER . Q. On the evening of the robbery was Mr. Fisher in the house? A. I do not know, but he was there at dinner—I do not know at what time his brother left that night—they dined at half-past 7 o'clock.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY . Q. Do you see much company down stairs at Mr. Fisher's? A. Not a great deal—friends have called and will call—there is a man servant and four women servants—I have friends to see me occasionally of an evening—gentlemen do not look in to see me.

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER . Q. I suppose a male cousin sometimes calls on you? A. Sometimes—I have a brother that has called once.

MARGARET AUGHTIE . I am lady's maid to Mrs. Fisher, and have been so ten years. I know Martin by his coming to see Channel—he came about half-past 10 o'clock on the Friday—the rest of the female servants had gone to bed—I heard a knocking at the area door, and let him in—he said, "I want to speak to Charnell for a minute"—he went straight to Charnel's room, and I saw no more of him—the bell is dose under the area door, and if rung would be heard over the lower part of the house—the area gate is generally locked at that time.

Cross-examined by MR. MAC ENTEER . Q. Is there a knocker on the door? A. No.

Cross-examined by MR. PARRY . Q. He might knock at the door or kick? A. Yes—I have never heard anybody knock at the door at night before, unless our servants are shut out, then they go to the coal cellar—I have not knocked with my knuckles, and never knew any one do so—no gentle man who came to see me complained that his knuckles were sore with knocking.

MR. GIFFARD . Q. Is there a bell close to the door which you can ring if you like? A. Yes.

HANNAH LAWSON . I am in Mr. Fisher's service as kitchen maid. I went to bed on that night about a quarter post 10 o'clock—M'Gavin was there when I went to bed, and he let Tillett in—I saw the pendulum of the area bell moving, but the bell was not ringing—I went to the door and saw Tillett; he asked if Charnell was in, and I said, "Yes"—he went into Charnell's room, and I saw no more of him.

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER . Q. Does the bell go easily? A. It depends on how you pull it—bells sometimes make a greater clatter than people intend.

CHARLES M'GAVIN . I live at No. 27, Doyle-street, Chelsea, and job about at gentlemen's houses. I have several times done jobs at Mr. Fisher's—I was there on Friday night, the 4th, at 6 o'clock in the evening, to clean boots and shoes—I left somewhere about 10 o'clock, and just before I went away I was in the pantry, and Tillett came in—it was then ten minutes or a quarter to 10 o'clock—after dinner I saw Charnell put all the plate that had been used into the closet—I have seen Martin there once or twice, but not that night.

Cross-examined by MR. MAC ENTEER . Q. When you left, was the entrance gate unlocked? A. Yes.

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER . Q. What were you doing? A. Wiping up the dessert things in the pantry—he could not know that I was there—he just said, "How do you do?"—he was not there when the plate was put in. ( The prisoners received excellent characters. )

NOT GUILTY .

ESSEX CASES .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

548. JAMES WILLIAM HONNER , embezzling and stealing 5 s . and 10 s .; the moneys of Joseph Conquest Hartwell , his master: to which he

PLEADED GUILTY . Aged 23.— Confined Four Months . ( There were two other indictments against the prisoner. )

549. JAMES GRAWLEY , stealing 16lbs. weight of leaden pipe, value 10 s .; the goods of Frederick Corfield .

MR. SLEIGH . conducted the Prosecution.

MARY JONES . I am the wife of John Jones; I live in Gurney's-road, West Ham. On Thursday, 8th May, about 12 or 1 o'clock, I saw the pri soner in a back yard, near to some unfinished houses, near to my house—I saw him pick up some leaden pipe, and I believe he had two pieces in his hand—there was another lad with him—I called to the prisoner, and asked what he was doing there—he threw the pieces of lead on the ground, and ran away—I picked them up, and gave them to the policeman—these are them—I have known the prisoner some years—I have no doubt he is the boy.

JOSEPH BENTON . ( policeman, K 381). I took the prisoner into custody—I told him it was on suspicion of stealing some lead from some new houses—he said he knew nothing about it, he was not there.

FREDERICK CORFIELD . I am the owner of those houses—I believe this lead pipe to be mine—I was about to enclose the yards—they are not yet enclosed.

NOT GUILTY .

550. ANN WINCHESTER , stealing 2 sovereigns; the moneys of James Kettle , her master.

HARRIET KETTLE . I am the wife of James Kettle. The prisoner came into my service on 4th April—on. 11th April I had 50 l . in a glove on the mantelpiece—I had tied it up two days before—I saw it safe at 7 o'clock, at a quarter past 7 I saw it had been untied—I counted it, and found two sovereigns were missing; one was marked—I had the rheumatism, and could not dress myself, and I asked her to assist me, and I sent her to fetch the remainder of my clothes from my sleeping room, where the glove was.

JOHN PADDICK . ( policeman, N 301). On the morning of 11th April I was sent for to the prosecutrix's house—Mrs. Kettle said she would give the prisoner in charge for stealing two sovereigns—I said to the prisoner, "You must go along with me"—she went into the back room to put on, her bonnet and shawl, and she took up this basket ( producing it )—I said to her, "Does this belong to you?"—she said, "Yes"—I looked into it, and found these two sovereigns—the prisoner said she did not know how they came there—before I found them she said she would give Mrs. Kettle her watch, and stop in her service till such time as the money was paid.

HARRIET KETTLE . These are the two sovereigns, one is marked.

JURY . Q. How came you to leave the money there? A. I meant to have taken it down, but I forgot it—I generally carry it in my bosom, but laid it on the mantelpiece at night.

Prisoner. I know nothing about it; there was another servant who swept the room a quarter before 7 o'clock. Witness. I have a girl to nurse the children, but she had not been up stairs.

GUILTY . Aged 22.— Confined Six Months .

551. JOHN FENNELL and SARAH HOWES , stealing 2 blankets, 4 sheets, and other articles, value 18 s ., and 350 l . in money; the property of William Horne .

MESSRS. SLEIGH . and THOMPSON . conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM HORNE . I am an excavator, and live in North Woolwich-road. I resided there with my wife in April last—I have been married about eleven years—I had some money, which I had saved up—it was in a box at the foot of the bed, in the bedroom up stairs, where I slept—I cannot say exactly the amount, I believe nearly 400 l ., it was all in gold, in sovereigns and half sovereigns—on 21st April I left home between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning; I went to Chatham to seek for employment—I returned between 9 and 10 o'clock in the evening—I found my wife was not at home, and I missed my money and my clothes—there was some little money left, about 30 l .—the box was always kept locked, and my wife kept the key of it—I missed all my wife's wearing apparel, and some blankets, and sheets and other things, and five shirts, these articles which were brought from Liverpool—I can identify this patchwork quilt, and this towel I know—these sheets and blankets are mine—I can speak to them as being my pro perty—my wife did not return that night—I went over to the Borough, where I expected to find her—I never saw Howes but once before, which was at my wife's father's house at Maidstone—I knew Fennell before—he had lodged with me for two years I dare say, but he had left me a good while, for more than a year—I saw Howes the next day in the Borough—I asked if she knew where my wife was; she said she did, and she said she would bring her to me, and I should see her, which she did not do—she told me times and times over that she would bring her to me, but she did not do it—she said the same again till I got tired of it—I saw her seven or eight days, and she always repeated the same words to me—I offered her 5 l . if she would show me the house where my wife was, that I could see her—I asked her if there was a man with my wife—she said no, there was no man with her, and she asked whether I thought there was—I said I did not know; I could not say exactly whether there was or not, but I had a suspicion—the last conversation I had with Howes was on the Monday before I gave her into custody—she then told me if I would come the next morning she would take me to her—on the Tuesday I saw her again, and gave her in charge of the police—when she was given in charge I and the policeman went with her to a house in Brook-street, West-square—the first house we went to we did not go in—when we did get into a house, there was a great deal of conversation—Howes said that my wife was staying with Mrs. Hughes, and likewise Fennell—we could not find them—Mrs. Hughes's husband was there—Mrs. Hughes said that Howes, had done all the mischief, and wanted to get all the trouble off her, and Mrs. Hughes's husband said if Howes came there any more he would throw her out of the window—Howes said she did not want to come there, she did not know that she had done anything wrong—after that I made further search for my wife—I did not find her—I never saw her—I gave the case into the policeman's hands—this gold watch and chain are mine.

Cross-examined by MR. LILLEY . Q. Your wife kept the key of the box in which the money was? A. Yes; it may have been six months since I saw the money—I know this quilt to be mine—it has no mark on it—I know it by seeing it made, and by the work that is put in it—this towel I know—it has a mark on it—I had seen these things before the officer brought them from Liverpool, and had used them too—I know them—I

know this blanket—there is no mark on it—I have made the beds lately—I had worked for that sum of money—I had been saving it about eleven years—the reason I did not put it in the saving-bank, was became my wife would not agree to it.

CHARLES ABBOTT . ( policeman, K 322). I took Howes into custody on 29th April, in Park-street, Borough. I said I took her for being concerned with Mrs. Horne, in removing her things away from her husband—she said she knew she had done wrong, and her husband would have persuaded her not to have gone—she said, "I will go and tell Mr. Borne where his wife is"—I said "Very well, come with me"—we took a cab, and went to No. 77, Brook-street, Lambeth, to Mrs. Hughes, who, Mrs. Howes said was her sister-in-law—when we got there, Mrs. Howes said to Mrs. Hughes, "Do you know where Mrs. Horne is gone to?"—Mrs. Hughes said, "Perhaps she is over the way, where she has taken the room"—we went over the way, to No. 46, and when we got there Howes asked where Betsy was gone—the old lady said, she did not know, she had not seen her that morning—Howes then said that a man went away in a van, and Mrs. Horne had gone with him—I then took Howes to the station.

Cross-examined. Q. Where was it that Mrs. Howes said this? A. In Brook-street, when we came away from No. 46.

HARRIET SMITH . I am the wife of John Smith. On the morning of 21st April, I passed Mr. Horne's house, and Mrs. Horne called me in—I went in, and staid several minutes—I went away, and came back again, and went in myself—Mrs. Horne was there, and Howes, and the next-door neighbour—I saw one box and two bags on the floor—Mrs. Horne asked me to help her, which I did—I carried one bag, and Mrs. Horne, and Mrs. Howes, and I, all proceeded to Blackwall, carrying those things—I left them there and went home.

JOHN SULLIVAN . I am a detective police-officer at Liverpool. In conse quence of a telegraphic message, I found the prisoner Fennell in a public-house, in Robert-street, Liverpool, kept by Mrs. Pearce—Mrs. Horne was with Fennell—I asked Mrs. Horne what her name was—she said, "Mrs. Jones"—I then asked Fennell what his name was—he said, "Mr. Jones"—I said, "No, your name is Fennell; you absconded with this woman, taking with you a quantity of property, and between 300 l . and 400 l ."—he then said, "My name in Fennell;" and he said he merely met that woman at the railway station at London—I took them to the police office, and two bags, a carpet bag, a box of provisions, and other articles—I searched Fen nell, and found this belt round his body—I asked him what was in it—he said "Gold"—I asked him what amount?—he said, "I can't tell within 7 l . or 8 l .; I think about 120 l ."—I opened it, and found in it 127 l . 10 s . in gold; and on his person a half-sovereign, and five shillings, a sixpence, and 5 1/2 d . in coppers—I asked him where he got the gold—he said he had been working in the Crimea, and brought the money from there—I asked him if he knew who paid him then—he said he could not tell me—I also found on his person this shipping ticket for John Jones and Elizabeth Jones, to Australia, and 25 l . paid for their passage—the date of sailing is 5th May—Mrs. Horne said she knew nothing about the money—I found a silver watch and a chain in one of the boxes which Fennell claimed.

Cross-examined. Q. When you first saw them at the lodging at Liver-pool, did you notice that there was an address on the box? A. Yes; "Mrs. Brown, Liverpool"—on one of the bags was "Mr. Jones, Liverpool" and no

direction on the other—Fennell told me he had been working at the railway in the Crimea, for Peto and Brassey—these sheets, and blankets, and towels were in the bags which I found.

MR. SLEIGH . Q. Did you go in the house where Fennell and Mrs. Horne were, and get these things out of the bedroom where they both slept? A. Yes; I asked Fennell if he slept in the room where these things were found—he said he did—I brought all the property from Li verpool to London.

FRANCES LAWSON . I am searcher at the police station at Liverpool I searched Mrs. Horne; I took from her 60 l . in sovereigns and half sovereigns and this gold watch and chain—I gave them to the last witness.

MABY REED . I am a widow, I live at No. 46, Brook-street, West-square, Lambeth. The prisoner, Fennell, and Mrs. Brown, occupied the parlour in my house—Mrs. Hughes recommended Mrs. Brown as a widow—she came on Tuesday, 22nd April, and remained till the 28th—Fennell joined her there at the latter end of the week, it might be on Friday, and he remained till the Monday—he went into the country on the Sunday morning, and came back—I do not know whether he slept there—I saw him late and I saw him early—they left on Monday evening—I was not at home when they left—the prisoner, Howes, came to my house on the Wednesday, and asked for Mrs. Brown—I said she was not at home—I saw Howes once or twice afterwards, but Mrs. Brown was to be denied to her.

Cross-examined. Q. Who took the room? A. Mrs. Hughes came with Mrs. Brown, and gave her a recommendation—Mrs. Brown came on Tues day—I am positive I saw the man on the Friday, it might be earlier—I saw him several times after the Friday, and was in company with him—I saw him on Saturday night between 10 and 11 o'clock—I saw him in the garden on Sunday morning between 7 and 8 o'clock—I saw him in the house afterwards.

EMMA HUGHES . I am the wife of William Hughes; I live at No. 77, Brook-street, West-square, Lambeth; Mrs. Howes is my brother's wife On 22nd April, she brought a woman to my house in the name of Betsy Wood—I had seen her before, about twenty years ago, when I was quite a child—she was then Betsy Wood—I had not seen her within the last year or two—I have seen her since, and have been told she is Mrs. Horne—when Mrs. Howes brought her, she wanted to know if Betsy Wood could remain with me a little while—I had (no room, and I took her to the last witness's house—we all three went together—on the following Monday I saw Betsy Wood leaving Mrs. Reed's house, and the prisoner, Fennell, was with her—they got into a van and went away—I went with them—they took with them a box and a carpet bag—the box was a great deal like this box that is here—I did not see any card on it—I saw Mrs. Howes when these persons were going—we all walked to the public house at the corner together—then I went with the van, but Mrs. Howes did not.

Cross-examined. Q. Had you not some doubt whether it was this man or not? A. I did not know him before—I went with them a little way—I had only been living in London a fortnight—I did not know Fennel's name at all till it was on my paper—Mrs. Reed's house is No. 46, Brook-street—my house is No. 77.

THOMAS SHARP HOLMES . ( police inspector, K This box was handed to me by inspector Sullivan—it was opened in my presence, and this property produced.

JOHN SULLIVAN . re-examined. This is the box that I took from the room where Fennell and the woman were living—I locked the box up and deli vered the key to the last witness.

FREDERICK MOORE . Cross-examined by MR. LILLEY . I am in the ser vice of Peto and Brassey. I knew Mr. Currey, he was one of the time keepers lately in our employ—the railway from Balaklava to Sebastopol was constructed by Peto and Brassey—there was a man employed there named John Fennell—there was only one John Fennel—I paid John Fennell his last account—I cannot recognise the man at the bar—it is impossible to recognise one man out of 500—I paid some of the men; I paid a person who called himself John Fennell—I have no belief whether this man is the John Fennell, I do not know him—the men received personally the money that was due to them—the balance that I paid to John Fennell was 12 l . 7 s . 6 d .—I have not my books here—I did not pay John Fennell any more money, nor did I see it paid—the other money was paid in the Crimea by Mr. Bartlett—I have the balance sheet in my writing—this is from the book—a receipt was given—I have not the receipt here; I have a copy of it.

WILLIAM HORNE . re-examined. I know that Fennell left this country for the Crimea—I cannot tell when he came back, I think some time in Nov.

FREDERICK MOORE . re-examined Some of the men were in the Crimea about six months—some longer, some not so long—a labourer on the rail way there would earn 5 s . a day—John Fennell was a horse keeper—he wonld earn 7 s . 6 d . a day—he would have overwork—he might, as horse keeper earn as much as 110 l . Or in six months—he would not have to provide for himself out of his wages—some rations would be furnished to him by Government—it was the duty of Mr. Beattie to hire persons going to the Crimea, but he is dead now—I believe two or three clerks used to assist him, but I am sure I do not know their names—when the men come back there is some one sent down on board each vessel to arrange the time and place of payment—I went down as well as others—when I went down I suppose I should see John Fennell as well as others.

FENNELL — GUILTY . Aged 26.— Confined Two Years .

HOWES — NOT GUILTY .

KENT CASES .

Before Mr. Recorder.

552. WILLIAM PONMAN , JOHN REYNOLDS , WILLIAM REY NOLDS , and JOHN GORE , stealing a purse, and 2 l .; the property of William East , from the person of Sarah East .

MR. LILLEY . conducted the Prosecution.

SARAH EAST . I am the wife of William East, and keep a sweet stuff shop, at Lower Sydenham. On 14th April, about 6 o'clock: in the evening, the two Reynolds and Gore came into the shop, and asked for some almond rock; I could not reach the glass, and asked one of them to take it down from the window for me—they would not do so—John Reynolds said, "Come round and get it yourself"—I went round the counter and got it; in doing so I passed the prisoners—I had the glass in my hand, and then they said they would not have any sweets, I sold them too dear—I told them it was 2 d . an ounce—they said they would have a biscuit—John Reynolds

took one out of the window, and gave his brother one—they each took one, and each gave me a farthing—they then went away in a hurried manner—before they came in I had a purse in my pocket—I know I had it safe about a minute before they came in, because I had just paid a bill, and had used it—I had about 2 l . in it—there was a half sovereign, three or four half crowns, and the rest in shillings and sixpences—the half sovereign was wrapped up in a small piece of paper, a kind of newspaper, which was rather dirty—I missed my purse about a minute after the prisoners had left the shop—a customer came in immediately they had gone, and wanted change, and I found my purse was gone—I informed my husband of my loss, and he went to the station, and returned with the police, and they went in pursuit of the prisoners about ten minutes after they had left the shop—I should know the piece of paper again in which the half sovereign was wrapped—this ( produced ) is it, and this is my purse—I only know the paper from the wear—I had used it for the same purpose for perhaps three weeks or a month, and it had worn a hole.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON . Q. Where did you get your purse? A. From a man that picked it up in a gentleman's garden close by—he brought it into the shop, and gave it me—I do not know him—he is not here—this piece of paper was shown to me at the station house by one of the policemen—I had told him that the half sovereign was in a piece of dirty sort of newspaper, and that it had got a small hole in it from wear—I did not tell him it was torn in a triangular shape—the bill I paid was for butter and bacon, to a young man who called for it—no one serves in the shop but myself—my husband interferes very little in the business—I did not see Ponman at all till I went to the station—nobody came into the shop after the butterman left, except the prisoners.

MR. LILLEY . Q. Had you your purse safe after that man left? A. Yes; I am sure of that.

COURT . Q. Had you ever seen any of these boys at your shop before? A. No, nor in the neighbourhood—none of my money was marked.

THOMAS INGRAM . ( policeman, R 474). I was on duty at Sydenham, about half past 6 o'clock, on 14th April, and, in consequence of information, I apprehended William Reynolds and Gore—as I was taking them to the station, some one called out, "Policeman, mind one of these has got some thing in his hand"—I found that William Reynolds had two half crowns and three shillings in his left hand—I afterwards searched him at the station, and found 5 d . in copper, and a penny on Gore—when I took the money from Willian Reynolds, I said, "What have you there?"—I laid hold of his hand, and he dropped it into my hand—he did not say anything.

Cross examined. Q. Did not he put his hand into his pocket and take out the money? A. I cannot say positively whether he did or not—Mrs. East had told me she had been robbed by three boys—I afterwards went to fetch her to the station—I asked her what money there was—she said, "A half sovereign, wrapped up in a piece of paper"—I asked her if she would know the piece of paper; she said,. "Yes"—that was all she said—she said it was a piece of old newspaper—that was all the descrip tion she gave of it—when she was at the station this piece of paper was lying on jthe desk, with several others, and she looked down, and said, "That is the piece of paper the half sovereign was wrapped up in; I have had it in my possession three or four weeks"—the other pieces were not like this, quite different—I believe all the prisoners live in one street, somewhere in Shoreditch.

JOHN ROBERT REYNOLDS . ( policeman, R 289). On the evening of 14th April I saw the four prisoners in High-street, Sydenham—I apprehended Ponman and John Reynolds—Ingram took the other two—I searched them at the station; on Ponman I found a half sovereign, a piece of paper, 7 s . 6 d . in silver, and 5 d . in copper—the half sovereign fell as I went to lay it on, the desk; whether it fell from the paper I could not tell—I also found a tobacco box and a knife on Ponman; and on John Reynolds a tobacco box—when they were charged with the robbery, Ponman said he knew nothing of it—the others did not say anything in my hearing.

Cross-examined. Q. Did not each of them say they knew nothing of the robbery? A. Not in my presence or hearing—I recollect no one speaking but Ponman at the station—the paper may have been separate from the half-crown, for aught I know—there was a piece of brown paper in his pocket, something similar to what sugar is wrapped in—there was nothing else in the same pocket but a piece of string—the tobacco box was in a different pocket, but I have kept the paper in it since—the purse was found in a gentleman's garden—I did not see it found—the person who found it pointed out the spot to me, but could not state the day on which he found it—it was about half a mile from where I took the prisoners into custody—Ponman was with his barrow when I met him—he had it nearly filled with iron ware, shovels, and hoops, and things—the other boys were with him—I did not see that they had anything.

Witnesses for the Defence.

JOSEPH JOHN HUSSEY . I am a blacksmith, of No. 3, Charlotte-street, Turville-street, Bethnal-green—I have known Ponman two or three years—he has been working for me for the last five months—I always considered him honest and industrious—I never knew anything against him.

Cross-examined by MR. LILLEY . Q. How came he to have his head cropped so? A. He has been ill since his imprisonment, and has had his head shared—I live near him—he is married—I know all the other prisoners perfectly well, and have done so for two or three years—Ponman worked for me up to the time of his being taken into custody—I sent him out on that day to dispose of goods—he had with him about 3 cwt of goods, worth between 5 l . and 6 l .—I got the goods back from the policeman at the station—about 1 l . worth had been sold—he has been in the habit of travelling for me with goods in that way, daily, for five months, to every part within twenty miles of London, and he used to account to me daily—I have known the Reynolds from their infancy, and never knew any harm of them—they are employed by their father, who is a hawker of hardware—Gore was employed by Ponman to help push his barrow—he lives in the same street.

JAMES REYNOLDS . I am a hawker in Charlotte-street, Church-street, Shoreditch—the two prisoners are my sons—they go out hawking for me—they have always been well conducted—I sent them out on this occasion with 8 s . or 9 s . worth of cinder shovels, funnels, and other things, and they sold as many as came to 7 s . 6 d . in one place, Mr. Charles's, who keeps the Coal club in Woodbine-grove, Anerley, ana here is his writing to prove it ( pro ducing a paper )

( Several other witnessed deposed to the prisoner's good characters. )

JOHN ROBERT REYNOLDS . re-examined. I have been on duty at Sydenham nearly two years—that is not far from Anerly—I do not know Anerley at all—I cannot tell whether there is a Mr. Charles keeping the Coal club there.

NOT GUILTY .

553. ISABELLA STUART , stealing a necklace, the goods of John Townley , from the person of Emma Townley : and ANN STUART , feloniously receiving the same; to which

ISABELLA STUART PLEADED GUILTY .— Discharged.

MARY ANN TOWNLEY . I am the wife of John Townley, a blacksmith at Woolwich—I have a little girl eighteen months old—on 13th April, about half-past 12 o'clock in the day, she was standing at my front door—she had a coral necklace on—I saw Isabella Stuart there—I had not known her before—she spoke to my child, and remained there about a quarter of an hour—she took her up in her arms, and then put her down—I heard the child cry, and went, and missed the necklace off her neck—I then went after the prisoner, but did not see her—she was afterwards taken to the police station—she then said she lived in St. Mary's-street—first she said No. 25, and afterwards No. 27—I went there, but found nobody belonging to her.

JAMES ATTWOOD . ( policeman, R 313) The child Isabella was brought to the station and given into my custody—I told her she was charged with taking this coral necklace from a little child—she said, "I took it and chucked it under a box in the room my father and mother occupied"—I asked her where she lived—she said, "No. 25, St. Mary-street"—I after wards went to No. 56, Warwick-street—I went there in consequence of finding the name of Stuart in a prayer book which the child had in her possession—I knew persons of that name living at No. 56, Warwick-street—I went there, and found the prisoner Ann Stuart—I asked her if she had a daughter named Isabella—she said she had—I asked her whether Isabella had been out in the morning—she said, "No"—I asked her that again, and she said, "Yes, she was out about an hour, about dinner time"—I asked her if she had a little boy—she said, "Yes"—I asked where he was—she said he was gone to the barrack school—I asked her whether either of them had brought anything home this morning—she said, "No, nothing"—I said, "Are you sure of that?"—she said, "Yes"—I then said, "Isabella is at the station, in charge for stealing a coral necklace with a gold snap, and I must search your room, as Isabella says she took it, and it is here"—she said, "Oh, my little boy brought home a necklace, and said he had found it," and she went to a cupboard and brought out this necklace which I now produce—I told her she must go to the station along with me, which she did.

Ann Stuart's Defence. At a quarter to 2 o'clock ray little boy went out to play in the back lane; when he came in he showed me these beads, and said he had picked them up; I asked where he got them; he said, "Mother, I will show you," and I went with him, and he showed me where he found them; I put them in my cupboard, intending to make inquiry about them; about half-past 4 o'clock the prosecutor and the policeman came, and I told them the same; I did not know they were stolen; the policeman waited till my tittle boy came home, and he told the policeman where he had picked them up.

JAMES ATTWOOD . re-examined. The little boy came home just before I left—he was asked where he found them, and he told me, in the back lane—he is about eight or nine years old—he is here—the prisoner's husband is a pensioner, and works at shoe making.

ANN STUART — NOT GUILTY .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

554. JOHN BEALE , PATRICK MURPHY , and DANIEL MURPHY , stealing a quantity of leather, value 10 l ., the goods of James Crossley .

JOHN BURBIDGE . I am a boot maker, and live in Douglas-street Deptford. I have known Besle these twenty years—I saw him on 26th March, he said he had lost sight of me for some time, and he could have put a few pounds in my way—I said, "In what way?"—he said, about some leather that was got on the cross , and he supposed I did not mind buying it on the cross —I said, "No," and I asked him how much there was of it—he said, there was a pretty good swag , but the greater part was gone—I asked him how much he could get of it—he said he did not know exactly, but he would see me again—I appointed to see him in about an hour or an hour end a half—when he was gone I went to Mr. Crossley's, I had heard he had lost some leather—I saw Beale again at the top of Douglas-street, I asked him where the man lived who had the leather, and whether I should go with him—he said, no, perhaps, he should not see him till night—I saw Beale again on the following day, but he said he could not get it—on the Saturday morning he came to my house with a piece of leather bound round him, under his clothes (my daughter opened the door)—he took it out, and I saw it was Mr. Crossley's, it had his dressers' mark and the number—I asked him how much he asked for it—he said 5 s .—I said, "I must get you to call again in half an hour, and then I will make it all right"—he went away and I went out the other way—I rather think he watched me—he came back to my house, but I was not at home.

MARY ANN DAVIS . I am the wife of John Davis, and daughter of the last witness—I was at his house on 29th March, I remember Beale coming—he asked for my father, and they went in the parlour and stood talking—I went in the kitchen—my father went out and I asked Beale whether he would stay or call again in half an hour—he said he would call again—he went away, and in three or four minutes Beale came back and said he wanted the leather for my father, who was waiting at the end of the street—I said, I would not give it up except my father came—Beale staid some time and went away.

JAMES CROSSLEY . I am a currier and live in Church-street, Deptford. On 26th March I received some communication from Burbidge—on 19th March my place was broken into, and some leather taken away—on 29th March I received this piece of leather from Mr. Burbidge—it is the same description of leather that I had, but my foreman will speak to it more fully.

CHARLES THOMPSON . I am in the service of Mr. Crossley—this leather is his property—it is part of what was stolen—I saw it safe on the evening of 19th March, and missed it on the morning of the 20th—this piece formed the outside of a bundle of twenty-eight pieces—here are my own initials on it—it is part of a hide cut in two, and my own mark is on it.

JOSIAH TURNER . ( policeman, R 307). I was on duty at Deptford on 20th March, and I received information of the robbery—on 28th March I met Beale on Deptford-bridge—he said to me, "Are you looking after a certain party, Jem, the currier?"—I said, "No"—he said, "You are aware there has been a robbery at Mr. Crossley's?"—I said, "Yes"—he said, "I thought you were looking after it"—I said, "No, I was not"—he then said he thought he could find out something about it, if I met him the following morning at 9 o'clock he should be able to give me some information—he said, he should be able to go in the tap room amongst the men, and should hear something more about it—he said, they were two Irishmen, living in Giffin-street—I went at 9 o'clock and waited till 20 minutes to ten o'clock—he did not come—I did not see him till the

evening—on the Saturday evening I took Beale into custody at the corner by the Prince Regent public house—the other two prisoners were with him—I told Beale I should charge him with being concerned in stealing the leather—I said to him, "Do those other two know anything about it?"—he said, "They do"—and an officer took them into custody—in going along, Beale said he was very sorry he had not brought the leather to me instead of taking it to Burbidge, and he should have been all right—at the station he said he had received the leather from Pat Murphy, and Patrick Murphy struck him a violent blow on the eye, using an oath.

Beale. You said, "If you can make out anything about the leather with the two Murphys, do. Witness. I do not believe I mentioned the name of Murphy.

WILLIAM BEEVES WILSON . I am a police inspector—I assisted in taking Patrick and Daniel Murphy to the station—I took the charge and explained that they were charged with stealing a quantity of leather from Mr. Crossley, in Church-street, Deptford—Beale said he had received the leather, which was then lying there, from Pat Murphy, and Patrick Murphy struck him and became violent, and he was removed—Daniel Murphy said, as Beale had implicated his brother, he would tell me all about it—I took him out in the yard, and he said, "A man named Jem, the currier, asked me to lend him a hand to drive a barrow with the leather up to London; I did so, and he took it to a shop in Bermondsey-street and sold it, and he gave me 25 s . as my part"—he said, "We left the barrow in the street; that is all I know about it"—I asked him if he knew where the shop was—he said he thought he should be able to find it if he was taken there—he was not taken there, but we inquired at all the shops in Bermondsey-street, and they knew nothing of it.

Daniel Murphy. Q. When you took me, was I drunk or sober? A. You were sober, you had been drinking a little, but you knew what you were saying, and I cautioned you before you spoke—I did not come to you on the Sunday morning at the cell door, and ask you if you knew what you had said.

JAMES CROSSLEY . re-examined. On the night that Daniel Murphy was taken, I merely walked to the station and gave the charge—Daniel Murphy was sober.

ALFRED JOHN CROUCH , ( policeman, R 92). I assisted in taking the Murphys to the station—Daniel Murphy was sober, and perfectly able to judge of his own actions—when we arrived at the station Beale put his hand on Patrick Murphy, and said, "This is the man that I had the leather from"—Patrick Murphy struck him a blow on the eye, and he was removed—I left, and went to search Murphy's house in Giffin-street—I found no thing there—Daniel Murphy said he wished to tell the inspector something—I accompanied the inspector into the yard, and he said he had assisted to take the leather to Bermondsey-street, and he had 25 s . for his share—I came in again, and saw this leather on the table—I said to Patrick Murphy, "How do you account for this?"—he said "I picked it up in a passage of a house"—he would not say where the house was.

Beale's Defence. I received this leather from Patrick Murphy; he first told me of it, and it was a week afterwards before I got it; I took it to Mr. Burbidge, and asked him 5 s . for it; he offered me 4 s .; I am perfectly innocent of the robbery.

Patrick Murphy's Defence. I was going to work at 6 o'clock in the morning, and saw a door partly open; no person had lived in the house for

six months; I saw this piece of leather, and picked it up; I told Beale I had found it, and I did not know what sort it was; I saw him five or six days afterwards, and he asked me if I had sold it; I said "No," and I gave him the leather; I know nothing of it; any person might go in that house, and sleep for a night; there has been no rent paid for the house for above twelve months.

JAMES CROSSLEY . re-examined. This piece of leather produced is worth about 5 s .—the whole I lost was worth about 12 l .

BEALE — GUILTY . of receiving . Aged 38. Confined Twelve Months .

PATRICK MURPHY — GUILTY . of receiving. Aged 39. Confined Twelve Months .

DANIEL MURPHY — NOT GUILTY .

( Patrick Murphy woe also charged with having been before convicted; but James Wiliam Crouch being called to produce the certificate, did not answer. )

555. MARY ANN MUGGERIDGE , stealing 1 watch and 1 ring, value 1 l . 18 s . 6 d . and 2 l . 15 s . in money, the property of Thomas Jukes , from his person.

JANE KIRK . I am the wife of John Kirk, and live in Queen-street, Greenwich. The prisoner lodged at my house for a month—on Friday before 11th April she gave me a gold finger ring—she asked me to pawn it, which I did, at Mr. Carter's, for 1 s . 6 d —I gave her the shilling, and the sixpence was laid out for victuals—she told me a marine gave her the ring.

THOMAS JUKES . I am a corporal in the Royal Marines. I was in com pany with the prisoner on the evening of 2nd of April—I went to bed with her, and in the morning when I awoke, I was deficient of my watch, my money, and the ring—I had put my jacket and trousers under my head—they were withdrawn from under my head, and the watch and money were gone—the ring was taken off my finger without waking me—the prisoner was gone.

CORNELIUS GREENY . ( policeman, R 424.) I went to the prisoner's lodging, in Queen-street—I found this duplicate of a ring in a book—I asked the prisoner who put it there—she told me she did—I asked her where she got the ring—she told me it was given her by a marine.

( The prisoner, in her defence, stated that the prosecutor had given her the ring : and that before she left him the landlord had asked him if all was right, and he said " Yes." )

THOMAS JUKES , re-examined. There were two other persons in the room where we were, but there was a partition between us—I did not give the prisoner the ring—I was not exactly sober—the prisoner did not come with the landlord to me, not did the landlord ask if it was all right.

GUILTY . Aged 27.— Confined Six Months .

556. MARTIN MAXWELL , unlawfully assaulting Isabella Scopes , with intent, &c.

GUILTY .** Aged 28.— Confined Two Years .

557. JOHN DOOLEY , stealing 1 watch, value 6 l .; the goods of Thomas Fewins , from his person.

THOMAS FEWINS . I am a shipwright, and live at Northfleet. On 12th May, in the afternoon, I was coming out of Greenwich Park about a quarter before 5 o'clock, and on passing through the gate, the prisoner pushed against me and two or three other men—my wife sung out that they were hurting her—I put my arm round her waist, and felt a pull at my watch, and I heard the chain snap like the sound of a gun—I did not see

the prisoner pull my watch, but he was nearest to me, and I collared him—he slipped something over his shoulder, and some other parties tried to break my hold—it could not have been taken by one of the other parties who were near me—I did not see his hand near my person at all, but no one was so near me as him—he was the very next man to me—the person who did it must have used two hands—the guard was too strong to be broken—he broke the ring of the watch.

Prisoner. Q. Were there not 200 or 300 persons? A. The crowd was round me, you, and others—I said to you, "You have got my watch"—you said that you had not, and put your hand behind you—you did not tell me to call a policeman.

ELIZABETH FEWINS . I was with my husband coming through the gate—there was a crowd round—I saw my husband take hold of the prisoner—I saw him deliver the watch over to another person—I distinctly saw the watch in the prisoner's hand.

JAMES PAKKY . ( policeman, R 157). The prisoner was given into my custody—he said he was innocent.

Prisoners Defence. I was coming through Greenwich Park; there was a great lot of people; one scratched me on the back of my neck, and nearly knocked my hat off, and then this man seized mef and said, "You have got my watch;"I said, "I have Lot, call a policeman, I know nothing about the watch."

GUILTY .* Aged 22.— Confined Twelve Months .

558. MARIA BLACKWELL , stealing 3 yards of drugget, value 10 s .; the goods of Josiah James .

MARGARET JAMES . I am the wife of Josiah James. I do not know the prisoner—I saw her before the Magistrate—I did not see her on 12th April.

ALEXANDER WAXES . I work for Mr. Combes, of Chapel-street, Wool wich. On 12th April, between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, I saw the prisoner stand at Mr. James's door, for two or three minutes—two sailors then went in, and the prisoner directly afterwards—I did not see her come out—I had never seen her before—I did not see her again till the policeman pointed her out, and asked if I knew her.

RICHARD CLARK . I am a pawnbroker. I took in this drugget of the prisoner on the evening of 12th April for 4 s .—I knew her before.

MARGARET JAMES . re-examined. I know this drugget—there are two or three stains on it, and one in particular—I saw it safe between 10 and 11 o'clock in the morning, and had it in my front parlour—I keep a dairy—we have sailors there on Saturdays, and we take up the carpets and put them aside—I did not miss this on the Saturday, but missed it on Monday morning.

JOHN NEWELL . ( policeman, R 59). I took the prisoner into custody—I asked her where she got the piece of drugget that she had pawned—she said she received it of a little child, who asked her to pawn it, saying her mother was ill—she said it was a little girl about eleven years old, the size of her own daughter—she said she had seen her many times, but did not know where she lived.

Prisoner's Defence. I was at home that night; I was not there; I was not out of the house from 2 o'clock till between 5 and 6; I then went out; a person asked me to pawn this for her, and I did; I pawned it in my own name, which I objected to; I redeemed two articles of my own at the time.

RICHARD CLARK . re-examined. I do not remember that she objected to it being in her name.

GUILTY . Aged 44.— Confined Three Months .

559. RICHARD JORDAN , stealing 3 planes, value 1 l . 2 s ., the goods of George Notley .

GEORGE NOTLEY . I am a joiner, and live in Fox's-place, Plumstead. A fortnight before 2nd May, I left a basket of tools at a beer shop—I was there daily—I went there to dine—I saw them safe the day before I missed them—I missed three planes and some other things—these are the planes—the other things have not been found.

CAROLINE DUNSTONE . I am the wife of William Dunstone, he keeps a beer shop near the Royal Arsenal. The last witness left a basket of tools at my house—they were placed in the kitchen—I saw them safe many times—the prisoner came and took a lodging on the 22nd or 23rd April—he slept there on the 22nd and 23rd—I saw the tools safe when he got up on the morning of the 24th—he left about 9 o'clock—I missed the tools about a quarter of an hour afterwards—the prisoner had been in the kitchen between 7 and 9 o'clock—I left him there—I saw him leave the house carrying something in front of him, covered with something that seemed to me like a handkerchief.

JOHN THORP . I live with Mr. Moore, a pawnbroker, in Woolwich. These planes were pawned by the prisoner on the 24th April, about 10 o'clock in the morning.

JAMES WESTBROOK , ( policeman, R 114). I took the prisoner—I found on him seven duplicates—one of them related to these planes.

Prisoner. I did not offer to make away. Witness. I did not give him a chance, I took hold of him—he tried to get rid of the duplicates.

Prisoner. I have been in custody nearly a month; it is the first thing I have ever been guilty of in my life.

GUILTY . Aged 42.— Confined Twelve Months .

( There was another indictment against the prisoner. )

560. HENRY SMART , stealing 28lbs. weight of rags, 30 plates, 7 dishes, and other articles, the goods of Thomas Charles Andrews , his master; and CHARLOTTE PERRIN , feloniously receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen.

MR. RIBTON . conducted the Prosecution.

THOMAS CHARLES ANDREWS . I keep a china shop and deal in rags at No. 16, Richard-street, Woolwich—Smart was in my service as carman over twelve months—I have missed a great quantity of rags and other goods, and I have called his attention to it—on 10th April I was called in to my dinner—I was busy, and was not more than ten minutes—I went to the front door and saw Smart coming across the road—I had ordered him not to leave the back door, and that gave me suspicion—he had a bag and a screw wrench with him—I said to him, "Where have you been?"—he said, "Over the way to borrow this wrench"—I said, "Where have you been with the bag?"—he said, "Round the comer"—I said, "Where?"—he said, "Round the corner," and began to be very insolent—I said, "I insist on knowing"—I took it from him, and found that rags had been in it—I said, "Where did you get it?"—he said, "From Dr. Stewart's"—I took him round to Dr. Stewart's, and I said to Dr. Stewart, in Smart's presence, "Have you seen my carter come in here?"—he said, "I have not, I have been sitting at the desk this last half hour, and no one has come in at all"—Smart appeared confused, and I said to him, "This satis-faction is not sufficient,"I took him to the station, and he was detained, and the inspector sent a policeman to make inquiries—I examined the bag and found some pieces of white ragin it—I went to the house of Mr. Seymour,

who is a dealer in rags—some rags were shown to me there—I was able to identify two pieces as my property—one was a piece of dimity curtain, and the other was half a corded petticoat—I can swear to these, I had seen them amongst my own rags at my own place that morning—after that I went to Smart's lodging, which is at Perrin's house—I think it is called Myrtle-place—we saw Perrin—the sergeant asked her if a man lived there who worked for me—she said, "Yes"—he asked her what his name was?—she said, "Smart"—he said, "Have you got anything here belonging to him?"—she said, "No"—he said, "Are you sure of that?"—she said, "No"—we searched, and found some pans, which I identify as my property, with my mark on the bottom of them—I asked her where she got them from—she said she bought them at different shops—I said, "What shops? they are marked with my mark"—she said she did not know—I said, "They came from my shop"—she then said, "I will tell you all about it: Smart brought them in place of money for his board and lodging"—she said since Dec. he had not paid her any money—she said, "I will tell you all about it: here is some more in this box"—the box was then opened; it was a long trunk or box, like a clothes box, and in it was found this gilt tea service—these are things that have been in my place—they might have been sold—here is a dinner set—these things have at one time formed part of my stock—I will not undertake to say they have not been sold—here are six plates and other things—I can say the same with regard to them—here is a toy cup and saucer, which I can swear was in my place, and had never been sold—I had seen it in my place within two or three months—I missed it and spoke about it to all my men, and to Smart amongst the rest—here is a tea spoon, which I can swear was never sold; here is my mark on it—here is a square glass inkstand I can swear to—we sell these to Government, and supply cadets with them, no one else—when they came up I put them in a particular place—there were twenty-four of them, and I missed one of them—there were but twenty-three left—I had missed the one about a month before 10th April—here is a glass salt cellar, which I can identify—I find there is one of mine gone—with regard to this China tea service, I had not missed the teacups, but teapots and sugar basins I had missed—these pans are mine; I do not know when I missed them, we have five or six hundred at a time—I could not say how many rags I missed.

Cross-examined by MR. DENNEY . Q. Did you have any reference with Smart? A. No, I took him without reference, because I knew he had worked for the parish—I paid him 1 l . a week—I did not form any suspicion of him at first—I had some suspicion of him for about three months, when I found things done up in different places, ready to take away—I think it was between 12 and 1 o'clock when I saw him at the door with the bag under his arm—he has not been in the habit of carrying a bag—he went out with goods in the pony cart—if any person came and bought a few things, and I had not another man, I would send him—when I asked him to go to the police station, he was very insolent at first—I said, "You must go"—he said, "Very well"—I knew where he lodged, a few doors from my back premises—I did not ask him if he bad any objection to his lodging being searched—I was not in the habit of entrusting him with goods for sale on commission—the back of my warehouse goes back into Myrtle-place—we unload vessels and bring up all our goods from the back—there is access to the premises from the back as well as the front—I have a number of men coming backwards and forwards—these are such articles as are not sold in Woolwich—there are not such articles as these there—I purchase them from

Staffordshire, Yorkshire, and other places—if I saw these articles in Staf-fordshire or Yorkshire I could not swear to them—there are not articles of this pattern sold in Powis-street—I know some of these have not been sold—I do not know that Smart's father is in a large way of business at Maid stone—I heard his father say he was sorry he was his son, he had behaved very badly to him—I can tell you how I came by this dimity, when rags are bought they are put into a basket, and I opened the bundle of rags to see what was in it, and I looked particularly at this piece of dimity and this corded petticoat in it, and when we went to get the rags I said, "If they are mine you will find a piece of dimity and a corded petticoat in it"—this is the corded petticoat, and this is the dimity—I know these two pieces were in the bundle when I opened it that same morning—I cannot tell who I bought these rags of—I buy of anybody—we know the persons as our customers—we have bought of strangers—I do not keep any books of these things—we have removed goods for Mr. Serjeant—I should not think it likely that he would leave any rags behind—I have no mark on this inkstand, but they are ordered to this one pattern for the cadets—we supply them to one person only.

Cross-examined by MR. ROBINSON . Q. Is there any mark on the pans? A. Yes—they have been in my shop—I cannot say they have not been sold—I have supplied tea sets to a bazaar—these are common patterns—all the crockery was taken at Perrin's house.

MR. RIBTON . Q. Had Smart any authority to sell any goods of yours? A. Never—I strictly forbade him.

COURT . Q. What is the value of the whole of the property? A. I put them down at 3 l . or 4 l . altogether—I never sold any of these articles to Smart—my daughter and two men and a boy all serve in my shop.

MARY SEMON . I am the daughter of George Semon, a rag merchant, in Powis-street, Woolwich—Smart came to me on 10th April about 1 o'clock, with a bag of white rags with him—I gave him 5 s . 11 d . for 28lbs.—I laid them down by the side of the door of the shed by themselves—these are them—shortly afterwards the prosecutor and the policeman came, I showed them the rags and they were taken away.

Cross-examined by MR. DENNEY . Q. How do you recollect it was on the 10th of April? A. I went to the Court the same day—I had no other rags in the same place where these were—this is the bag they were brought in.

JOHN NEWELL . ( policemen, R 59.) I went to Perrin's house when Smart was in custody—I put some questions to Perrin—she at first denied all knowledge of these articles, and then she said she would tell all, and she said Smart brought them there—I searched Smart at the station and found on him 8 s . 10 d . and a key of Mr. Andrews' street door, which I gave to Mr. Andrews.

THOMAS CHARLES ANDREWS . I received this key and tried it to my street door—it was the key of that door—we had missed it for six weeks.

Cross-examined by MR. DENNEY . Q. Did you give Smart the key to get in and out? A. No; I never did—I missed this key—it was a patent lock on the door—I spoke to the prisoner and the other men, they all said they knew nothing about it.

SMART — GUILTY . Aged 25.— Confined Twelve Months .

PERRIN — GUILTY .— Confined Four Months .

Before Michael Prendergast, Esq.

561. JOHN NASH , stealing 10 s . 6 d .; the moneys of James Munday , his master.

MR. LOGIE . conducted the Prosecution.

ALFRED STRIDE . I am Mr. Munday's cousin, and assist him in his busi ness; he is a butcher, at Woolwich. On Saturday night, 5th April, the pri soner was in Mr. Munday's service—he and I were in the shop, and Mr. Mun day was outside—the scales are about two feet six inches from the till, and the prisoner was between them—there had not been any customers for a few minutes, but about 11 o'clock, Mr. Munday told the prisoner to weigh a piece of fat—I went to get it from a quarter of beef which hung up, and heard a jingle of silver in the till; I turned round, gave the prisoner the fat, he took it from me with his right hand, and I saw him drawing his left hand from the till, with silver in it; his fore finger was not clenched, as he had a bandage on the tip of it—I believe his hand came out of the till—I did not see him literally take it out—on Saturday evenings we take the till and put it near the scale quite open—I whistled, made a signal to Mr. Munday, and pointed to the prisoner's hand—whistling is a general custom of ours, but it had not been agreed upon—Mr. Munday came in, and as he came in the prisoner took out his handkerchief, wiped his nose, or pretended to do so, and as he returned his handkerchief to his pocket, I heard the jingle of silver—he had put the fat on the scale—Mr. Munday said, "George, what have you put in your pocket?"—he said, "Nothing"—he drew his handkerchief out, and there was 14 s . and 1 d . or 2 d .; the prisoner took a slight glance at the money, and then Mr. Munday asked him how much he had, and he said, "About 14 s . 6 d ."—and then, I believe, he put it into his side pocket, from which he had taken it—the pocket was loose; it was a round frock—there was no occasion to go to the till; there was a customer in the shop, but no money was exchanged.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON . Q. Do you know how much was in the till? A. No; there might be 20 l ., and there might be 100 l .—I do not interfere with Mr. Munday's business sufficient to know—the prisoner has been there two or three months—I have been there all the time he has been there—there has been no quarrel between us—he has used a great deal of abusive language against me, but never in my presence—I thought it was a boyish action and let it pass; it is about six weeks ago—perhaps he wanted to shut up the shop of an evening, and I wanted to go elsewhere; it was not my duty to do so—I am not paid, I only go to oblige Mr. Munday—I work at the Arsenal, but not as a butcher; I shall not answer you in what way, it is not requisite.

COURT . Q. Tell it? A. Well, Sir, if you have a wish to know, I will tell you; sometimes I assist an engineer there.

MR. RIBTON . Q. What else? A. I think that is sufficient—I shall decline your question—I will not answer—there was not much meat on the counter—the prisoner was to put the piece of fat into the scale to make weight—I did not tell him to move the piece of fat—he was weighing a piece of fat for a customer in the shop—I am confident there was a customer, because Mr. Munday passed the meat in to be weighed—I do not recollect whether I gave the customer any change; I put the money into the till—Mr. Munday went to look for an officer, and the prisoner went across to a public house—while the prisoner and Mr. Munday were talking, the customer paid me—I made no entry of the weight of the beef in any book—I sleep in Union-street, Woolwich—I have done work and been paid for it up to Saturday at dinner time—I was working for Government last Saturday—I do not consider that I am bound to answer when I last received money from anybody for work—I received money from Govern ment last Thursday or Friday—the prisoner's hand was about two inches

from the till, which was on his left hand, and the scale on his right—he had his face to me; I saw him attempt it once before the same evening, which caused my suspicion—I had had no previous arrangement with Mr. Munday.

JAMES MUNDAY . I am a butcher of Eyre-street, Woolwich—the prisoner was in my employ—on the evening of 5th April, there was but little meat, and there was not the slightest obstacle to my seeing to the scale where the prisoner was weighing a piece of meat for a woman—Stride was inside the shop—I saw him hand a piece of fat to the prisoner—he then whistled and pointed to the prisoner's left hand and I saw some money in it—he pre tended to wipe his nose and dropped the money into his pocket—I then heard the chinking of silver—he put his hand back and I said, "George, what have you put in your pocket?"—he said, "Nothing, you may search me"—I went in, and he took out four half crowns and four shillings and twopence before I asked him how much he had—I said, "How came you by that?"—he said, "It is what I have saved out of my wages"—I said, "How can that be, when you only have a crown a-week?"—he said, "I have saved it"—I boarded and lodged him—he said, "I went over to Mr. Fry's, had a quartern of gin, changed half a crown and he gave me 2 s . 2 d . out"—the silver I saw in his hand appeared to be two shillings and a half crown by the gaslight—there are three compartments in the till; there was 9 l . or 10 l . on the silver side—I went for a policeman and gave him in charge—he had been in my service seven or eight weeks.

Cross-examined. Q. What light was there? A. Five or six gas lights flaring in different parts of the shop—the woman paid for the beef but not to the prisoner—it was one pound and a little more; I handed it in, the prisoner weighed it, and my wife, who came in, received the money—I am a cousin of the last witness—there was a bit of rag on one of the prisoner's fingers; his hand was slightly open—I believe the prisoner had received money that night, but he was not instructed to do so—I had told Stride to give a signal, and I believe I said a whistle—this was on Saturday—I appeared before the Magistrate on the Monday—I was not talking to Stride about it on Sunday.

MR. LOGIE . Q. Did the prisoner say anything to you about having received any of that money from customers? A. No.

WILLIAM BUTCHER . ( policeman, R 85). I took the prisoner—I told him the charge—he said that the money he had was what his father had given him as pocket-money, and some which he had saved up—there were four half-crowns and six shillings, and in his blue pocket, two shillings and some halfpence.

COURT . to JAMES MUNDAY . Q. Where was the money? A. In his breast pocket; butchers do not usually use that pocket for money—it is only a slop pocket for a handkerchief; it was not a coat—it was a slop —I do not know whether he had a breeches pocket as he scarcely ever had his slop off.

WILLIAM BUTCHER . re-examined. I found 14 s . in his trousers pocket, and 2 s . and 2 d . in his slop pocket.

( The prisoner received a good character. )

NOT GUILTY .

SURREY CASES .

Before Mr. Recorder.

562. HENRY WILMOT , burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Clare , and stealing 1 tea-caddy, and other goods, value 3 l ., of John Clare .

MR. BALLANTINE . conducted the Prosecution.

LYDIA CLARE . I am the wife of John Clare, of No. 49, Commercial-road, Lambeth. On the morning of 27th April, about a quarter past 3 o'clock, I was awoke by a person named Jenkinson—I ran down stairs and found my parlour window open—I found that two dresses and a coat had been removed from behind the door to the centre table, and the tea-caddy and tea-pot from the sideboard, where they had been when I went to bed about a quarter past 10 o'clock the night before—I had fastened the window the night before, but had not put the shutters up—my husband and I occupy the back and front parlours—we were the last up in those room—we had lodgers in the house—we looked up the parlours, and took the keys with us stairs—when I came down in the morning I found the doors still locked as I had left them—the parlour doors open into the pas sage—nobody else in the house has a key of those doors.

Prisoner. When I was taken she said she could not speak to the fastening of the window from the Sunday previous. Witness. I said I had not had it open since the Sunday; but I saw that it was quite secure when we went to bed on the night of the robbery—I did not fasten it, I saw that it was fast—I did not put up the shutters, because it darkens the room so.

JANE JENKINSON . I am the wife of Thomas Jenkinson, of Lett's Wharf, Commercial-road, Lambeth. On the morning of 27th April, about half past 3 o'clock, I got out of bed and looked out of window, and saw a man and woman at the corner of Cottage-place—I saw the man open Mr. Clare's window, and get into the room—we live opposite them—I do not know what became of the woman, she did not go in—I went down stairs, and made an alarm to my husband, who is watchman in Mr. Lett's timber yard, and then went with him over to Mr. Clare's—I threw up the window, which the man had closed again after getting in, and he jumped out of the window, and knocked me down backwards—the prisoner is the man, I am certain of him—he did not strike me, he knocked me down by jumping out to make his escape—my husband ran after him, calling "Stop thief!" but he could not catch him.

Prisoner. Q. How can you swear to me? A. I really cannot tell, but I can swear that you are the man by your appearance.

COURT . Q. What sort of light was there? A. Very good—we are between gaslights—it was just getting daybreak.

THOMAS JENKINSON . I am the husband of the last witness. My wife came down to me soon after 3 o'clock on the morning in question, and gave me information, in consequence of which I went with her over to Mr. Clare's—I saw the prisoner jump out of the window, I have not the least doubt he is the person—I followed him, but did not catch him—I called "Stop thief!"—he ran along Cornwall-road, across Stamford-street, and down Cornwall-road again, and then I lost sight of him—I did not see him stopped.

THOMAS GARFORTH . ( policeman, L ) About half past 3 o'clock, on the morning of 27th April, I was on duty in the Cornwall-road, and saw the

prisoner running from the direction of Stamford-street down the Cornwall-road—he stopped a few paces before I got to him, and I took him into custody—he had no shoes on—I asked him what he was running for—he said he had been upset by some men in Stamford-street—I asked him where his shoes were—he said he had been without any for two days—I took to him to the Commercial-road, and showed him to the two witnesses, and they recognized him at once—I searched him, and found some lucifer matches in his waistcoat pocket.

Prisoner's Defence. I left my lodging on the Thursday night previous to the robbery; I had no shoes, having sold them on the Wednesday; I was walking the streets all night, on account of a few words I had with my sister on the Thursday night; going along Stamford-street a nightman came up to me, took hold of me, and began to use me roughly, and when he let go of me, I went in one direction, and he in another;. as I stood at the corner of the street, the policeman came running along; he stood in the road for about three minutes, looking up the road, hearing the cry of "Step thief!"when he saw me, and said I must go with him; he took me back, and when about twenty or thirty yards from the prosecutor's house, they cried out, "Bring him along, that is the man,"and they would have said the same of any person.

LYDIA CLARE . re-examined. The window was fastened with a hasp, the usual fastening—it was not broken—a knife was found by which it might have been opened, by putting it in between the sashes.

THOMAS GARFORTH . re-examined. A knife was found, about an hour after he was taken, in a court close by; by putting that knife between the sashes, so as to push back the catch, the window might have been opened.

GUILTY . Aged 20.— Confined Twelve Months .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

563. MARGARET MINTON , unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LAWRENCE . and POLAND . conducted the Prosecution.

BENJAMIN CARTLEDGE . I am a fishmonger in the Borough. On 28th March the prisoner came to my shop, between 8 and 9 o'clock at night—she purchased a piece of fish, which came to 7 d . or 8 d .—she gave me a 5 s . piece—I gave it to my wife, and the change was given to the prisoner, and she left—on the Monday following my wife gave me a crown piece—I gave it to some one to try—I saw it tried, and it was returned to me as bad—I gave that crown back to my wife—while the person tried it I did not lose sight of it.

ANN CARTLEDGE . On the evening of 28th March my husband gave me a crown. The prisoner was at the door—I gave her part of the change—I put the crown into a cash box—it was locked up—there was no other crown there—I took it out on the following Monday, and showed it to my hus band—he returned it to me, and I found it was bad—I locked it up again, and afterwards gave it to the constable—there was no other crown in the box when I took it out.

Prisoner. When you saw me you pointed to another woman. Witness. There were three women there—the first person I set my eyes on was a woman who had passed a bad shilling to me—I said, "That is the woman that passed the shilling"—the gaoler took me out, and I said, "That was not the woman that passed the crown"—he took me in again, and I pointed out the prisoner as the woman that passed the crown—I had not observed the prisoner at first—I am sure she is the person who passed the crown.

CHARLES EVE . I am a fishmonger, and live in Great Suffolk-street. On 31st March, the prisoner came about a quarter after 10 o'clock in the evening—she purchased a small haddock which came to 5 d .—she tendered me a crown—I gave it to my wife to get change of my next neighbour—it was brought back to me in two or three minutes as bad—the prisoner said she could not account for it—she could not give any address—I gave her into custody.

ELIZABETH EVE . I am the wife of the last witness. My husband gave me a crown, and I saw the prisoner in the shop—I went to the next door neigh bour to get change—he tried it in a trier; it bent, and I brought it back, and gave it to my husband—it was given to the policeman.

PATRICK AHERN . The prisoner was given into my custody at Mr. Eve's shop—Mrs. Eve gave me this crown—I afterwards received this other crown from Mr. Partridge.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am inspector of coin to the Royal Mint. These are both bad, and from the same mould.

GUILTY . Aged 23.— Confined Nine Months .

564. ANNIE BROWN and JOHN EDWARDS were indicted for a like offence.

MESSRS. LAWRENCE . and POLAND . conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN EMPSON . My brother keeps the Three Compasses, in Lower Marsh, Lambeth, and I assist him. On 30th April I was there—the prisoner Brown came in for a glass of porter—she put down a bad sixpence—I told her it was bad, and she said that I must take the porter back, as she had no more money—she said that she got it in change in Westminster-road—I broke it in two pieces, returned it to her, and she left—I followed her; she went into Westminster-road, under the railway arch—she stood there a short time, and Edwards joined her—they stood close to each other for some time—Edwards then left her—he returned in about ten minutes, and joined her again, and, after having stood some time, they both proceeded down West-minster-road, till they got within a short space of the Rodney—Brown went in there—I went into the other box, and heard Brown call for a glass of porter—I cautioned the person about her—I had before seen a constable, and told him.

CHARLES JACKSON . I am barman at the Rodney public house, near the Bridge Railway, Lambeth. On 30th April Brown came in, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon—she asked for a glass of porter, and gave me in payment a sixpence—the last witness came in, and made a motion to my young master, and I broke the sixpence with my teeth, and told Brown it was bad—she said she did not know it—I jumped over the counter, and detained her till a constable came, and gave the sixpence to him—he brought Edwards into the bar, and took both the prisoners to the station.

JOHN NEWMAN . ( policeman, L 79.) On 30th of April, I was on duty in the afternoon in Westminster-road—Empson spoke to me and pointed out the two prisoners who were under the railway arch—I watched them, and saw Brown go into the Rodney, Empson followed her in—he came out again, and I went and took Edwards who was about thirty yards on the other side of the Rodney—I said to him, "Come along with me"—he said, "What for?"—I said, "You shall see presently," and I took him into the Rodney—Brown was there, and she was given into my charge by the barman for passing a bad sixpence—the sixpence was given to me—I said to Edwards, "You are charged with being connected with this female in passing bad money"—he said, that he knew nothing of it, and he did not

know the woman at all, only by living in the same house—I took both the prisoners to the station, and on the way Brown put her hand into her pocket and took it out again—I said, "What have you got in your hand?"—she said, "Nothing"—I opened her hand and took out this bad sixpence—she said, "That is all I have got, don't lock me up"—I searched Edwards at the station, I found on him 5 1/2 d ., and on Brown, a good sixpence, and 1 d . in copper—they gave their address, No, 2, Kent-street, Borough—I found that they lived there as man and wife.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These are both bad.

( Edwards' statement before the Magistrate was here read as follows :—"I gave her the sixpence—she did not know they were bad.")

BROWN — GUILTY . Aged 29. Judgment Respited.

EDWARDS — GUILTY . Aged 28. Confined Nine Months .

565. ELIZABETH ANN CARTER was indicted for a like offence.

MESSRS. LAWRENCE and POLAND . conducted the Prosecution.

MARY GRAHAM . My husband keeps an eating house at No. 27, Stangate-street. On Saturday, 12th April, I was there—the prisoner came at near 10 o'clock at night—she asked for a quarter of a pound of pork and a 1 d . worth of potatoes—they came to 4 1/2 d .—she laid down a 5 s . piece—my little boy said, "Mother, I will go for change"—he went over the way to Mr. Broadhurst and brought the change back—I gave it to her, and she left—soon after Mr. Broadhurst came and said the crown was bad—on Saturday, 3rd May, the pri soner came again about the same time in the evening—I was in the parlour—I heard her talking to my husband—I recognised her voice, and went into the shop—I said to her, "You are the same woman that was here this night three weeks"—she said, "I think you are mistaken, ma'am."

GEORGE ALFRED GRAHAM . I am eight years old. On Saturday evening, 12th April, I saw the prisoner in my mother's shop—I was sent for change to Mr. Broadhurst—I got it, and gave it to my mother—on Saturday, 3rd May, about 10 o'clock in the evening, the prisoner came for a quarter of a pound of roast pork and 1 d . worth of potatoes—she asked my father for them, and put down a 5 s . piece, which was given to my mother—I was in the shop when she came in, and heard my mother say something about her having been there before, and then I saw she was the same person.

HENRY BROADHURST . I keep the Crown public house at Stangate. On Saturday night, 12th April, this little boy came with a crown—I gave him change, and after he was gone I found the crown piece was bad—I put it away in a drawer by itself—on Saturday, 3rd May, Mrs. Graham came to tell me the woman was there—I went, and found the prisoner in the shop—I fetched a constable—I gave him the crown which I had received on 12th April.

GEORGE GRAHAM . I am the husband of the first witness. On Saturday, 12th April, I saw the prisoner in my shop, about 10 o'clock—I was having my supper in the back parlour—my wife asked me if I had change—I came through the shop during the time that my little boy went for change—on Saturday, 3rd May, I saw the prisoner in my shop a little before 10 o'clock—I recognised her the moment she came in, but did not speak to her—she came in just at a busy time, as she had done before—I served one or two persons, and took particular notice of the prisoner—she then asked for two ounces of pork, and a 1 d . worth of potatoes—she put down a 5 s . piece—I said, "I think you are the woman that paid me a visit this day three weeks"—I put the 5 s . piece in the trier, and it was bad—my wife came in, and

said, "You are the woman"—my wife went to Mr. Broadhuret and he gave the prisoner into custody—I gave the crown piece to the constable.

Prisoner. Q. Did you not say that the first time I Had a black eye? A. No; I said you had paint on your eye; it was not a black eye.

THOMAS NORMAN . ( policeman, L 195). The prisoner was given into my custody on 3rd May—Mr. Graham gave me a crown, and Mr. Broadhurst gave me another—the prisoner had 2 d . in her hand—I asked where she lived, she said she lived anywhere, she had no fixed residence.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These are both bad.

GUILTY . Aged 37.— Confined Nine Months .

ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, JUNE . 16, 1856.
