AN INFANT'S DEATH.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 7, 8 January 1908, Page 5

AN INFANT'S DEATH.

THE INQUIRY CONTINUED. SOME STRANGE EVIDENCE. The adjourned inquiry into the death of the infant, Doris Pauline Snodgrass, who was found dead in bed on the morning of the 13th of December, was continued before the Coroner (Mr. T. Gresham) this morning. Ifr. Pullen appeared to watch the inquiry in the interests of the mother, i who was present. In reading Mr. Pond's analytical report the Coroner said it was entirely negative —that is, it disclosed nothing that would j lead to any clue as to the deathMrs. Wilson, a boarding-house keeper in Turner-street, said that she had known Irene Snodgrass, the mother of the child, I for three weeks prior to the death of the | infant. She came to witness's house with a man named Wasp. The mother told witness that she was desirous of getting someone to adopt the child. On the morning of the 13th a boarder came to her and made a serious complaint. The man's name was Stewart, and he said, "' I don't mind a child crying, but I object Ito a child being smothered in the blanI kets. 7. It was usual for the mother to J come down to breakfast at eight o'clock, I but as she did not come down that moraI ing witness went to the mothers room. Witness asked, " Will you be down to j breakfast, or are you sick ? " The mother replied, " Yes, I am coming down soon." About five minutes later witness heard the bell ring, and the mother screamed out. The maid came down and said the mother had told her the baby was dead. Witness went to the bedroom door. The mother said, " Come in; my baby is dead." Witness went for Dr. Hardie Neil, and was present when he examined the child. She asked the doctor to have the baby taken away to the hospital. The mother also expressed a wish that the body should be taken away in order to ascertain what it had died from. The body was taken away by Dr. Hardie Neil. Nothing was said before the doctor that would lead him to suspect foul play. The Coroner: Had you any suspicions after what the boarder said to you? Did I you ask the mother any questions ? '. Witness: I asked her did she give the I child any brandy, and she said ** Xo.' , Did you see a brandy flask there?— Yes. there was a little in a flask. Continuing, witness said: The mother seemed well disposed towards the child. When the doctor came the mother admitted to him that Wasp, with whom she was living in my house, was not her husband, and not the father of the child. The boarder. Stewart, told witness that it was not because of the child's crying that he complained, but because he heard sounds as if the baby was being I smothered.

Mr. Puilen: From your experience, is ; it not a fact that men are irritable when there is a baby in the house? The Coroner: That is a reflection on i our sex, Mr. Pulien. Witness: That has been my experience. | ; In answer to Mr. Puilen, witness said | i the walls of the house were of wood, j and uounds were easily heard through 1 them. j In answer to Sergeant Hendry, witness ■ said the body was still warm when she , saw it, and there was a little black about j the lips. In reply to Mr. Puilen witness said the black mark was very indistinct, and might have been soot. Dr. Bull gave evidence of attending the ! hospital morgue on September 14th. The J Coroner was present. The body was that I 'of a well-nourisfced female infant. head had been removed, and the brain | opened up. Witness examined the or-1 gans of the chest and abdomen, and I found slight inflammation or the bowels, i From his examination of the remains Ihe could form no opinion of the cause of death. The body was well-cared for and well-nourished. Dr. Hardie Neil was present at the morgue part of the time. | and said he had no reason to suspect foul i piav. He said he had made an examina- j • tion ot ■ the brain, head, and wind-pipe,« : and found nothing abnormal. Dr. Hardie j ' J Neil, continued witness, said he was j • : treating the subject from a scientific ■ " ] point o? view, and having no suspicion of j • ■ foul play, felt justified in making the j 1 \ examination. Dr. Ball added_ that per- j 5 sonally he would not give a certificate of i 1 death from inflammation of the bowels i ■without a post-mortem examination in a | case where he had not previously attended the patient. From a medical point of view Dr. Hardie Neu's action was perfectly justified; from a "medica-legal point of view it was pertaps another.

majtter. I Mr. Puilen raised the point that the Coroner was putting questions to Dr. Bull, of which no mention or suggestion had been made in previous evidence. The Coroner replied that he was present at the post-mortam. when Dr. Hardie Neil was also in attendance. No post-mortem could be performed when there were suspicious circumstances unless by order of the Coroner. Mr Pnllen: Without throwing a slight on the medical profession, are not doctors renowned throughout the world tor their differences of opinion?

Dr. Bull: Not more so than lawyers. Dr. Hardie Neil deposed that he found the "mother of the infant greatly distressed, and after some time discovered! her history. Witness also ascertained the diet on which the infant had been kept, and learnt that it had been feveri>=h during the previous two weeks. The mother said the child had been fed at 3 o'clock that morning. He examined the body of the child, which was well nourished. He found no marks ot violence. It was suggested by the mother and friends that witness should endeavour to ascertain the cause o? death. He offered to do this at the hospital morgue. Sergeant Eyles ws.l present, and made no suggestion of the improprietry of removing the body. At the hospital witness commenced an examination of the body. Before he had completed the examination he was called away to Kingsland. Whilst in a private house there, witness was rung up by the police and asked about the examination. He replied that as far as he could see there was nothing wrong with the child, and he thought he would be prepared to give a certificate. Speaking tentatively, witness added, he informed' the police that inflammation of the intestines was the probable cause of death. Later on witness -was informed that an inquiry would be held, and decided to proceed no further with his examination of the body. The actual cause of death, in his opinion, was a convulsion, following gaa-tron-enteritis. In answer to Sergeant Hendry, witness said Sergeant Eyles and himself were satisfied there were no suspicious circumstances about the ease. In conclusion Dr. Hardie Neil saic that a child which was being smotherec by bed clothes made no sound at aIL bul fought with its hands and feet. A chile with a teat in its mouth made a gurglinj kind of sound.

The Coroner said he was quite satisfied with Dr. Hardie Neil's evidence. The jury and the doctor would understand and appreciate the position he was in. If he allowed a precedest to be «t -.rp, it might happen that traces of crime might be destroyed, and the interests of justice nonplussed. Alexander Stewart, on being called to give evidence, said he knew of nothing ■ that would in any way cause him to be- i lieve the mother of the child had contributed to its death. On the morning of the 13th he went to Mrs. Wilson and said he did not mind the child crying, but he did object to hearing it cry as if were being smothered in the bed clothes. Though he said he heard the child crying in a smothered kind of way, he did not mean to infer that it was being suffocated. He more than once heard the child crying in this way. THE VERDICT. ! The jury, after a short retirement, : I brought in* a verdict that death was due ; !to natural causes, namely, convulsions.