Correspondence.

Press, Volume XI, Issue 130, 9 January 1867, Page 3

Correspondence.

COBONEB'S INQUEST. TO THE KDITOB OP THE "PEBSS." Sib, —An inquest was held yesterday on the body of a child found drowned in a creek, about a mile below the South Town Belt. When the inquiry was pending, two of the jurymen asked whether the evidence of the medical man who was called to see the child immediately after it was taken out of the water, would not be required, as was usual in such cases. They were answered in the negative. A few months ago a child was drowned in the same creek. A medical man was sent for and saw the child after it was dead, yet strange to say he received a summons from the Coroner to give evidence at the inquiry. The Coroner found it necessary to summons the medical witness in the first case, why not in the second ? I have always understood that the medical man who first saw the body after death was called upon to give his opinion as to the mode of death, and ehoald think *h" a dangerous precedent if allowed to pass unnoticed.

WBet is the inference ? That the Coroner either exceeded hie duty in summoning the medical witness in the first case, thereby improperly spending certain moneye the property of the General Government, as all medical witnesses have to be paid ; or that an injustice has been done to the public in not allowing their representatives to hare the benefit of medical evidence. I am, sir, your obedient servant, A JxJBYiUJi. Christchurch, January 8, 1867.