A RECENT INQUEST.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 4453, 22 May 1875, Page 3

A RECENT INQUEST.

TO THE EUITOB OF THE LYTTELTON TIMES. Sib,— ln reading in your columns yesterday of the inquest of the late Joseph Betts; held at the Oxford Hotel on Monday, I was surprised to read that there was no medical evidence taken in the first place; and secondly, I cannot perceive where one of the witnesses gets his information from when he states that the deceased made over property to his wife to the extent of £2OO per annum before going to Auckland in 1869, as I have since learned from good authority that the property did not amount to more than one-thiraoi that sum.

He also states that the deceased had applied to his wife for assistance, which she refused to give him. This statement I can positively deny, as he never did apply to her for assistance.

And I was not at all surprised to read that one of the jnrors wished that the wife of the deceased might be examined after hearing the evidence of one of the witnesses, and I consider that the police were to blame for not subpoenaing the ■ wife, or some one on bier behalf, as a witness, and tor allowing the case to go as it did—all on one side. . 1 may state for information that the deceased was sent to the Inebriate Asylum for twelve months, of which six months had expired, when Mr M‘Knight went to J. B. Gresson, Esq., and vouched for his safekeeping until his term should have expired, which it would have done on June 30 next, and that he was to keep him away from , his wife nntil the said time had expired j -and I still hold my opinion that Mr M'Knight should not have had him released from the Asylum, unless he had proper control over him, which his evidence proves that he bad not.

Also, as I was sitting in the waiting-room of the Oxford Hotel, on Monday afternoon, after the inquest was over, three of the jurors came into the room and commenced talking about the affair, when one of them distinctly said that the wife was not to blame, but that he considered that the blame was attached to Mr M'Enight for releasing him from the Asylum; but at the same time he considered that she ought to have allowed him so much a week. But I consider that he would have been provided for until the end of next month, had not Mr M'Enight taken the responsibility on himself of releasing him from the Asylum. My reason for writing this letter is, because I fully expected to read a different -report, after hearing those remarks while in the waiting-room of the Oxford Hotel (andwhioh I have stated); and I know that anyone that is familiar with the whole affair, will bear me out in what I have stated.

Apologising for trespassing so largely upon your space, Tour obedient servant, JUSTICE.