THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATYRDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1880.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVII, Issue 5944, 4 December 1880, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATYRDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1880.

Two eoronial iiu|uirit.'s have been held during the week, one on the lire at Mount Eden, tlie other on the body of Mr. Robert .Brown, and with respect to both there have been circumstances as objectionable as strange. The inquest on tin; body of Mr. Brown was necessitated by the fact that he died unexpectedly, and had shortly before purchased strychnine. It was a reasonable presumption that he had committed suicide, but the medical evidence showed that he had died from natural causes, - the Coroner directed the jury to that ell'ect, but they returned a verdict tantamount to his death having been caused by strychnine, but how administered they did not undertake to say. It was their duty to have returned a verdict in accordance with the evidence, and their iindiug was in direct opposition to it. it would seem (hat they had formed a preconceived notion that the strychnine purchased by the deceased was the cause of death, and disregarded the fact that the symptoms as described by the medical attendant were not such as ensue from

poisoning by strychnine, and tliat an ■ examination of the stomach failed to ! detect the faintest traces of that poison. The absence of these traces is compatible with the poison having been taken, but it may be questioned whether the absence of the usual symptoms is compatible with it. The verdict is incomprehensible for another reason. The jury decided that strychnine was the cause of death, but left it an open question how the deceased came to sutler from it. Hut inasmuch as he had himself purchased it, the conclusion that he had taken it necessarily followed a decision that he had died from its effects. Apparently the jury attached j no value to the medical evidence, at | least they disregarded it, and if they wen; not satisfied with it they j should have intimated the fact to the Coroner, who would have adjourned the inquiry to enable a further analysis of the stomach to be made. The case is a very curious one, and it may be admitted that the presumption was in favour of strychnine having been the cause of death, but it is incomprehensible how the jury could have felt themselves justified in disregarding the direction of the. Coroner and the decided testimony of two medical men. The piirclia.-v of the strychnine was suggestive of desih bv poisoning, which was contradicted by all the circumstances connected with the last moments of the deceased, und the medical investigation. Whether the jury's verdict was absolutely wrong cannot be said ; but it was utterly wrong on the facts, on which alone a conclusion could be based. They gave a.speculative verdict; but that sort of license is attended with so much danger that it is to he hoped the example will nut be followed. We may point out one danger : if there were an insurance policy on the deceased's life the interests of the widow might be seriously jeopardised. There must, always be danger if juries exceed tile strict limits of their duties.

In the «is(> of tin; .Mount Eden fire, the Mimiler was not thiit of tin- jury, hut was eomiceteil with tin-summoning of it. The only facts relevant 10 our purpose, arc that the Insuraiied Association prosecuteil the man Owen for incendiarism—lie was discharged. Air. .James Reid was the local of tile New Zealand Insurance Company, and was instrumental in efl'ectini; the insurance. Me was summoned on the. jury, — pointod out. to tlie eon.stalile tlie impropriety of his lieinj; connected with it, hut was told that it did not matter. During the proceedings Mr. .J. l>. Russell, who appeared for Owen, learnt the state of ailairs, and his objection resulted in the inijuirv being recommenced and another foreman being substituted for -Mr. Rind, who was discharged from the jury. The proverbial indill'erenee shown in the summonsing of a Coroner's jury was exceeded in this case, for tlie objection to Mr. Reid's acting he himself brought under the notice of the summoning consttible, who not only treated the matter cavalierly but made no representation to his superior otlicer on the subject, for Mr. Pardv avowed his entire ignorance of the objection to Mr. Reid. But is the summoning of Coroners' juries always done with an easy disregard of such circumstances? Is there no system, no responsibility ? If the constable cannot take cognizance of such representations as were made in this case, has he no instructions to make them known to his superior officers'? It would have been rather hard for Mr. Owen if he had been committed for trial, had been detained in custody in default of bail, and it had subsequently become known what was Mr. Reid's position. We trust that the discovery made in this case will ensure more caution and better management with regard to coronial inquiries; that the police authorities will exercise the necessary precautions, and the Coroner, though it be no part of his duty, be on the alert.