The Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1867.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 31, 7 February 1867, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1867.

The unusual spectacle was preseuted yesterday, of the exhumation, by order of the Corouer, of a child who had died iu the gaol. At the inquest the coroner stated that his instructions required him to hold an inquest on the body of any person who died in the gaol. The actinggaoler said he acted in accordance with clause 87 of the prison regulations, which require that "notice of the death of a prisoner must be given to the coroner, and to the relations of the deceased, when they can be ascertained," aud that, in the present instance, he did not feel called upon to inform the coroner ot the death of the child. There is a discrepancy between the authorities which will have to be cleared up, as was apparent from a statement of the coroner, that he would have to write to the Government at Wellington, respecting the matter. The object of the inoj-aest yesterday, was to establish the prerogatives of the coroner, and to show the cause of death. It appeared from the testimony of Dr. Vickerman and a female attendant, that the death of the child was attributable solely to natural causes. It was evident, however, that a suspicion lurked iu the minds of several of the jury, that a woman Avho had been proved to be an adept at infanticide, might have adopted some measures to injure the child previous to its birth. Several questions were put with a view to ascertain this fact, and the questioners were referred to the conclusive character of the medical testimony. It appears to be admitted without controversy, that the husband is the father of tbe child in question. This is a satisfactory refutation of tiie rumours that have been circulated tending to question thi.s fact. Whilst the inquest was being held on the body of the child yesterday, another inquiry was going on in the Superintendent's office, as to who is responsible for allowing the husband to communicate with the prisoner. As this inquiry is, for the present, confined to the Government officials, the public have no means of ascertaining the nature of the evidence given. The propriety of conducting an inquiry into conduct of Government officers, in a private mauner, may be questioned, as the public, being supplied only with disjointed fragments of evidence which are always furnished by some of the parties concerned, are unable to judge fairly aud impartially of the subject. We understand that the object of the inquiry is to fix the responsibility of the officers avlio allowed the husband, contrary to the prison regulations, to have unrestricted intercourse with the prisoner. We are iuformed that the acting gaoler denies all knowledge of, aud repudiates all responsibility io reference to the fact, that such a privilege was allowed the husband ; aud throws the blame ou the chief warder, who is thus charged with a gross dereliction of duty. On the other hand, the accused party affirms that he did nothing without distinct orders from his chief, who is alone responsible. This we believe to be a correct statement of the case. It is of little cousequeuce to the public who is to blame in the transaction, but it is of great importance that the attention of the Government should be called to the serious defects that exist in our prison discipline. When prisoners are convicted and imprisoned for serious crimes agaiust society, the public naturally imagine that the places of punishment are really what they pvofess to be, and not mere comfortable lounges, where men and women are subject to little more restriction than they would find under ordinary circumstances. The inquiry will put the blame on the right shoulders, aud we hope that the evidence, though taken in a private manner, will be made public through the columns of the journals.