DEATH OF BOY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20731, 16 December 1932, Page 16

DEATH OF BOY.

INQUEST CONCLUDED.

REFERENCE TO FATHER»S ATTITUDE.

Reference to the actions of one of the principal witnesses in the inquest on the death of Konald Francis Staeey, a boy .13 years old, who died in the Christchurch Public Hospital on November 24th, was made at the conclusion of the proceedings yesterday, by the Coroner (Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M.), who stated that the issue of the enquiry had boen somewhat clouded by the attitude taken up by the father of the boy, Mr Arthur Francis Staeey, which had been difficult to understand.

The boy was found in a state of collapse in the bathroom of his home at 122, Avonside drive, on the evening of November 23rd. He died in the Christchurch Public Hospital on the following morning,-and-at the inquest held later in the day, the father .of too boy, Mr A. F. Staeey, refused to answer»certain questions. Mr Mosley then adjourned the proceedings. At ihe conclusion of the inquest yesterday, the Coroner returned a verdict that death, had been due to asphyxiation, which was due to hanging, associated with congestion of the brain mud oedema of the lungs. There was no evidence of any other person having been concerned in the hanging, other than the boy himself. Medical Evidence. Dr. William Hamilton, house -surgeon at the Christchurch Public Hospital, stated that on the evening of November 23rd, the boy was brought into the outpatients' department of the Hospital. Ho was pale and had some congestion about the face. There was a red mark around his neck and he had trouble in breathing. The father was outside the room and was called in and asked what had happened to the boy. He was a bit confused regarding the age of the boy, but said that his sou was found lying in the bathroom naked, moaning, and with the light out. The father had telephoned two doctors, but they wero out, and he had taken him to the Hospital in a motor-car. Later the father told witness that he and his been in bed with a wireless goijfeand had heard moans in the house. His wife got up,and found the boy in tho- bathroom. The father had been asked about the red mark on the boy's neck, witness said, and he stated that he thought it was received by the boy -while attempting to fix the cleotric light bulb, while standing on the bath, and that he had slipped and hit his chin on the bath.

Sheeting in Bathroom, The father had been very anxious about the condition of hig son. His daughter arrived, and in a few minutes the father -walked into the -ward, after having talked to her, and loudly exclaimed, "Doctor, I have it." The father then informed witness that sheeting had been found in the bathroom, which the boy had apparently used in an attempt, to hang himself. Mr Stacey then left the Hospital to see his wife at his home, saying that he would be back in half an hour. He arrived back with his wife, and they then told witness that the sheeting was hanging from a, shower-rail and part of it was lying on the floor.

To Sergeant L. T. Moore (who appeared for the police), witness said that the mark round the neck would bo consistent with the use of the sheeting produced in the Court. He did not think that the mark on the neck when he saw the boy was sufficiently deep to have caused death.

Tied to Rail. Constable T. G, Fluwellyn, stationed at Linwcod, stated that on the morning of November 24ih he visited Mr Stacey 's, hpme and saw the father of the dead boy. The witness was taken to the bathroom; there he found a piece ,' of sheeting (produced in Court) tied to the rail above the entrance to the

shower. Another piece -was on the floor. There were very slight bloodstains on the floor. The bathroom was adjacent to the room in which the boy slept. There was no electric globe in the bath- . room, nor did witness see any globe upstairs. Mother's Evidence. Florence May Stacey, the mother of 1 the boy, stated that after the father had taken the boy to the Hospital witness went up to' the bathroom to have a look round, and saw the sheeting. It was tied tight to the rail above the shower entrance, just as though someone had tied it carefully. It would have been impossible for the boy to have placed it there himself without something to stand on. To Mr Acland witness stated that she thought that the boy had been swinging in the daytime on the sheeting and had gone in to have a bath, and when trying to swing on it, as he passed, it had broken and the boy had fallen backwards, striking his head. Evidence of Father. Arthur Francis Stacey, the boy's father, giving evidence additional to that given at the opening of the inquest, stated that he firmly believed that his son died accidentally. He did not think that there was any foul P la y- . .. j When the witness was questioned about his actions at the first inquest, Mr Mosley pointed out to him that the issue of the way in which the boy had died was clouded somewhat, entirely owing to the actions of witness. Witness said that his boy had been happy, and he knew of no reason why the lad should have attempted his own life. Pathologist's Finding. Dr. A. B. Pearson, pathologist at the Christchnrch Public Hospital, supplied a report and post-mortem examination made by him on the body of the boy. His finding -was that the cause of death was asphyxia, due to hanging and associated with congestion of the brain and oedema of the lungs. To Mr Acland, Dr. Pearson stated that he agreed that accidental hangings did occur, particularly with boys, who were actuated by curiosity. But had the boy accidentally hanged himself he would have expected to have found some of the sheeting Tound the neck. He could not agree that the boy could have fainted. To the Coroner witness said that he saw no evidence of the boy having struck himself on the edge of the bath. The Verdict. His duty was to find out how and by what means the boy met his death, said Mr Mosley, in delivering his verdict. After referring to the attitude taken by the boy's father, which, he said, could almost be forgiven in the circumstances, Mr Mosley stated that in order to probe the facts thoroughly the expert and reliable evidence of the pathologist had been secured. He was perfectly satisfied with the conclusion of Dr. Pearson, which appeared to be logical and in accordance with the pathological findings.