INQUEST.

An inquiry into the circumstances attending the death of an infant, whose dead body was found at the rear of Mr A. L. Smith's premises, near the Water of Leith, on Friday morning last, took place at the Hospital on Wednesday before Dr Hocken, District Coroner, and a Jury of fifteen. Tho Coroner stated that the object of the inquiry wa» to sco bow the infant in question had died—whether the mother had conspired to cmso its death, or whether its death was the result of unavoidable causes. Mr Denciston appeared to watch the proceedings on behalf of Caroline Young, the supposed mother of the child.' « Jane Shaw, living in Howe street, next Mrs Smith's, deposed tb.it on Friday morning last she found the body of a child about two yards from Mre Smith's fence. She told Mrs Smith, who said that her servant girl had been taken i>l that morning, and had refused to allow a doctor to see her. |At this stage of the proceedings Caroline Young, a younpr woman, was brought in from the Hospital. When addressed by the Coroner she appeared not to understand what was sud to her.] Elizabeth Smith deposed that she lived with her husband, A. L Smith, ia Howe street. Caroline Young who had been in her service for eight weeks, was )1' on Friday morning, and had an epileptic fit. She would not let witness send for a doctor. Witness had suspected that the girl was pregnant. The place near which tho child was found was about four feet high and 20 feet from the door of th.9 house. From tho appearance of the girl'a room she thought that a child bad been born there recently. Dr J. D. Niven deposed that on the morning of the 19th instant he was called by Mrs Smith to attend the girl Caroline Young. From what he saw, he suspected that the girl had been confined, and this was proved conclusively by his examination of the girl. After examining the body of the child, he came to the conclusion that it had lived after Ub birth. The natural conclusion to which he came was that the child died from exposure. If the child had been thrown over the fence, the fall might have killed it. 3 he girl told him she threw tbe child over the fence. There were no marks of violence on he body. Elizabeth Christina Cummock, aged 10 years, employed by Mrs Smith as a nunegirl, also gave evidence. Jane O'Brien, wife of Charles O'Brien, gave evidence *Bto the girl Young having an epileptic fit on the 19th instant. The girl stated tint sho had been in the back yard that night. She said that she was 16 years old. The father of the child was dead, and asked witness not to tell her mother. She further said that the child whs dead, and there was no uso keeping it. She seemed confused. She had five r>r nix fits in quick ouccesjion that day, Sho acknowledged that she had had a baby, but said it wan six weeks before, lhis was after the child had been ound. Sergeant Dean gave evidence as to the position and

appearance of the child's body wh»n his attention was calJedtoit. Ijt ,_ A In answer to the Coroner, Mr Cennist on said that the girl was not in a fit state 10 make a statement, nor would he, acting for her, permit it. Dr Isaiah De Zouche said he made & post mortem examination of tho body of the deceased on Saturday, the 20th inst. There wore no external marks of violence on it It was the body o( a fully-developed male child. He judged that je^piration h^d been fairly performed, but not perfectly. The right lung seemed to have received air fully— the left not so fully. From this he concluded that the child lived and breathed— he thought but a short time, possibly five or ten minutes. As to the cause of death witness said he could find no natural cause to account for it— that would express it negativtly. He s*w nothing about the child which would lead him to believe that it would not live with proper care and attention. There were no distinctive appearances to account for death. ]f the child had been suffocated— suddenly suffocated in the bed -the child might have presented those appearances. Suffocation was the most likely cause. The chid might have been suffocated after birth by its face lying on the bed. It was possib c that bleeding might have caused death, but he did not think such was the case there. The Coroner, in summing up, sad: This is all the evidence, and I think you will have no reasonable doubt that the deceased child was the child of this Caroline Young The next thin? for you to say is as to bow the de-ith of this child occurred. There is no doubt at ail from Dr De Zuuche's evidence thai the child lived, he thinks, for a few minutes At any late it certainly lived. His is rather negative than positive evidence. It tends to show pretty distinctly that suffocation was the cause of death. That idea was formed generally from the imperfectly inflated air-cells in the lungs. If you come to that conclusion you must a*y whethor this sufflcation was caused by the mother wilfully. I need hardly cay that there is no evidence to le*d you to such a concluBicn. It is quite possible,»sDrDeZouchesays,that this was a case of instant suffocation aud it is also possibe. seeing the mother had fits after the birth of the child, that she may have had them previously and during the birth of the child. It is quite prS3ible it may have been born during a fit, and the mother on recovering consciousness found the child dead or dying, in which case she removed it. I think there is n» doubt she toek it away. Altogether, the evidence is by no means sufficiently conclusive for you to return mora than an open verdict. Such a verdict as this would seem to be borne out by the evidence — an open ono that t.he child died from suffocation— but there is no evidence to show how such suffocation was caused, whether by the wilful ace of the mother or a purely unforeseen accident. That seems to be one of the mo t rational verdicts to return— an open one not to commit yourselves t) any positive statement. The suspicious side of the evidence is of course that the girl not only hid the child, but denied being pregnant to Mrs Smith, and that she defied, after the birth of the child, that there was anything the matter with her. The suspicion is that this was done, no doubt, with the intention of evading discovery. Still that evidence alone does not help you much. Then you will say, gentlemen, what you think the verdict is It is quite p 'ssible for you to say that suffocation itself was the cause of de ith. Tho effect of an open verdict is that if anything more transpires, the matter can be brought up again. The Jury brousrht in an open verdict—" That the child died from suffocation, but thero is no evidence to show how the suffocation was caused." The Coroner : I think that is a verdict that the evidence thoroughly bears out.