THE SYDNEY CASE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 176, 25 June 1935, Page 7

THE SYDNEY CASE.

JUDGE DELIVERS VERDICT. NQ BASIS FOR INQUEST.. SYDNEY, June 24. In the Supreme ,Court, 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 tho alleged death of James Smith. His Honour said: “No body identified as that of James Smith has been found, and it follows that the whole of tho body of James Smith has not been viewed by the Coroner, but an arm, in extraordinary circumstances, has been produced to him and, by certain tattoo marks, this has been identified as the ann 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.” The judgment, after referring to the opening of the Inquest, continues: “The applicant for the 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 on the ground that no inquest can be held except sillier visum corporis, and that no corpus has been viewed as a preliminary to holding the inquiry.” The Judge, after referring to Acts relating to coroners’ inquiries, and dating as far back as 1276, cited passages from Hawking's “Pleas of the Crown” and facts of an English case, to show both the strictness required from coroners as to a proper view of the body, and the irrelevancy of the fact that death and identity had been established. * “The whole matter reduces itself to the question. ‘ls an arm a body or corpus?’ or ‘how much of body may be called a body?’ I am of the opinion that the limb viewed in this case cannot be called a body. Were I to hold otherwise, it would follow that each leg was a body, and likewise a head. Consequently, if 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 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 no proper basis for the inquest, and that the Coroner should not have entered upon the inquiry. Although this is so, I do not t,kink the administration of justice will lva in any way impeded by this decision. Where the inquest cannot be held there is still open a proceeding before a Magistrate, and there may be a committal and trial.”