RULE ABSOLUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 148, 25 June 1935, Page 7

RULE ABSOLUTE.

INQUEST STOPPED. Judge's Ruling in Tattooed Arm Case. A LIMB NOT A BODY. (United P.A.—Electric Telegraph—Copyright) SYDNEY, June 24. In the Supreme Court to-day Mr. Justice Halse Rogers made absolute a rule sought on behalf of Patrick Brady for a prohibition restraining the coroner from proceeding with the inquiry into the alleged death of James Smith.

"No body identified as that of James Smith has been found," said his Honor, "and it follows that the whole of the body of James Smith has not been viewed by the coroner. But an arm, in extraordinary circumstances, has been produced to liim, and by certain tattoo marks this has been identified as an arm of James Smith.

"There is evidence that, the arm, which was severed from the trunk by a sharp knife, was cut from a dead body, and the coroner has sworn that he is satisfied that the James Smith whose arm it was is dead."

His Honor referred to tlie opening of the inquest and continued: "The applicant for prohibition, who has been arrested and charged with the murder of James Smith, challenges the legality of the action of the coroner, and his challenge is based 011 the ground that 110 inquest can be held except super visum corporis, and that 110 corpus has been viewed as a preliminary to the holding of the inquiry."

After referring to the Acts relating to coroners' inquiries, and dating as far back as 127G, his Honor cited passages from Hawkins' "Pleas of the Crown," and the facts of an English case, to show the strictness required from coroners as to a proper view of the body.

"The whole matter," he said, "reduces itself to the question: 'Is an arm a body or corpus?' or 'How much of a body may be called a body ?'

"I am of opinion," his Honor added, "that the limb viewed in this case cannot be called a body. Were Ito hold otherwise, it would follow that each leg was a body, arid likewise a severed head, and consequently, if the various parts were found lying within the jurisdiction of different coroners, there might be so many separate inquests.

"I am not concerned to decide whether a trunk without a head or limbs might be called a body or corpus, but I am constrained to the opinion that any separate member cannot be so termed.

"Consequently I am of opinion that there was 110 proper basis for an inquest, and the coroner should not have entered upon the inquiry.

"Although this is so, I do not think the administration of justice will be in any way impeded by this decision. Where an inquest cannot be held there is still open a proceeding before a magistrate, and there may be a committal and trial."