They Hanged My Saintly Billy (34 page)

Now,
the
deceased
Mr
Cook
had
been
only
partially
interested in
these
transactions.
I
should
mention,
before
I
go
into
the
further history
of
the
case,
that
Walter
Palmer,
the
brother,
died
in
the
month
of
August,
1855.
His
life
had
been
insured
for
thirteen thousand
pounds,
and
the
policy
had
been
assigned
to
the
prisoner —who,
of
course,
expected
that
the
proceeds
would
pay
off
those liabilities.
However,
the
Insurance
Office
in
question
declined
to pay;
consequently
there
was
no
assistance
to
be
derived
from
that source.

As
I
was
saying,
Gentl
emen,
Mr
Cook
had
been,
to
a
certain extent—but
only
to
a
very
limited
extent—mixed
up
with
the prisoner
in
these
pecuniary
transactions.
It
seems
that
in
th
e
month of
May,
1855,
Palmer
was
pressed—by
a
person
named
Serjeant, I
believe—to
pay
a
sum
of
five
hundred
pounds
on
a
bill
of
transaction.
At
that
time,
Palmer
had
in
the
hands
of
Mr
Pratt
a
credit balance
of
three
hundred
and
ten
pounds;
and
asked
him
for
an advance
of
one
hundred
and
ninety
pounds
to
make
up
the
five hundred.
When
Mr
Pratt
refused
this
advance,
except
on
security, Palmer
offered
him
the
acceptance
of
Cook,
representing
Mr
Cook to
be
a
man
of
substance;
accordingly,
the
acceptance
of
Mr
Cook for
two
hundred
pounds
was
sent
up,
and
on
it
Mr
Pratt
advanced the
money.
This
appears
to
have
been
the
first
transaction
of
the kind
in
which
Mr
Cook
figured,
and
though
not
knowing
whether it
has
any
immediate
bearing
on
the
subject,
I
am
anxious
to
lay before
you
all
the
circumstances
which
show
the
relation
between Palmer
and
Cook.
Palmer
having
failed
to
provide
for
that
bill
of two
hundred
pounds,
when
it
became
due,
Mr
Cook
had
to provide
for
it
himself,
which
he
did.

In
th
e
August
of
1855,
a
transaction
took
place
to
which
I
must again
call
your
particular
attention:
Palmer
informed
Mr
Pratt that
he
must
have
one
thousand
pounds
more
by
the
next
Saturday.
Mr
Pratt
declined
to
advance
the
thousand
pounds
without security;
whereupon
Palmer
offered
the
security
of
Mr
Cook's acceptance
for
five
hundred
pounds,
again
representing
him
as
a man
of
substance.
But
Mr
Pratt
still
declined
to
advance
the money
without
some
more
tangible
security
than
Mr
Cook's mere
acceptance.
Now,
Palmer
explained
this
as
a
transaction
in which
Mr
Cook
required
the
money,
and
since
I
have
no
means of
ascertaining
how
the
matter
stood,
I
will
give
him
the
credit to
suppose
that
it
was
so,
and
that
he
had
Mr
Cook's
acquiescence
for
th
e
proposals
he
was
making
to
Mr
Pratt.
Mr
Cook
was engaged
upon
the
Turf,
sometimes
winning,
sometimes
losing; and
purchasing
horses.
It
may
perfectly
well
be
that
he
then
required
this
loan
of
five
hundred
pounds,
as
Palmer
declared.

Since,
as
I
said
before,
Mr
Pratt
declined
to
advance
the
money except
upon
more
available
security,
Palmer
proposed
an
assignment
by
Mr
Cook
of
two
racehorses—the
one
called
Polesta
r,
the horse
that
afterwards
won
at
Shrewsbury
Races,
and
the
other called
Sirius—and,
as
Mr
Pratt
agreed,
this
assignment
was
executed
by
Mr
Cook,
in
Mr
Pratt's
favour,
as
a
collateral
security for
the
loan
of
five
hundred
pounds.
Now,
Mr
Cook
was
entitled to
as
much
money
as
could
be
realized
upon
this
security;
the arrangement
being
that
Mr
Pratt
should
give
him
a
sum
of
.£375
in
money
and
a
wine-warrant
for
£
65
which,
with
discount
for three
months
at
£
50,
and
expenses
at
£10,
made
up
the
total sum
of
£
500.
But
Palmer
contrived
that
the
£
375
cheque
and the
wine-warrant
should
be
sent
to
him,
and
not
to
Mr
Cook;
for he
wrote,
desiring
that
Mr
Pratt
should
forward
them
to
him
at the
Post
Office,
Doncaster,
where
he
would
see
Mr
Cook.
He could
not,
in
fact,
see
Mr
Cook
there,
because
Mr
Cook
did
not visit
Doncaster;
but
by
these
means
Palmer
got
the
cheque
and
the wine-warrant
into
his
own
hands.
He
affixed
to
the
face
of
the cheque
a
receipt
stamp,
and
availed
himself
of
the
opportunity, now
afforded
by
the
law,
of
striking
out
the
word
'bearer',
and writing
'order'.
The
effect
of
this
was,
as
you
are
all
no
doubt aware,
to
necessitate
the
endorsement
of
Mr
Cook
upon
the
back of
the
cheque;
but
since
Palmer
did
not
intend
that
these
proceeds
should
find
their
way
into
Mr
Cook's
hands,
he
accordingly forged
the
signature
'John
Parsons
Cook'
on
the
back
of
that cheque.
He
then
paid
the
cheque
into
his
bankers
at
Rugeley:
the proceeds
were
realized,
paid
by
the
bankers
in
London,
and
went to
the
credit
of
Palmer.
Mr
Cook
never
received
the
money,
and you
will
see
that
at
the
time
of
his
last
illness
this
bill,
which
was
a bill
at
three
months,
in
respect
of
these
transactions
of
the
10th
of September,
would
be
due
in
the
course
often
days;
when
it
would appear
that
Palmer
had
forged
Mr
Cook's
endorsement
on
this cheque
and
pocketed
the
proceeds.