CORONER AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13626, 20 December 1907, Page 6

CORONER AND POLICE.

INCIDENT AT AN INQUEST.

A SECOND POST-MORTEM.

CORONER DECLINES TO TAKE EVIDENCE.

A somkwhat lively interlude in connection with the holding of a second post-mortem examination occurred yesterday at the inquest on the body of the headless infant which was recently found on the beach at Ponsonby.

Dr. Ferguson, the first witness called, had given the particulars of the postmortem examination of the body which he had held on December 7, by the instructions of the Coroner (Mr. T. Gresham), lie then proceeded to say that on the 9th inst. the body was again examined at the instance of Detective Mcllveney.

The Coroner (to Detective Mcllveney): Why was I not informed of this?

Detective Mcllveney: I was instructed by the Inspector of Police.

The Coroner: Nothing in the nature of a post-mortem should have Liken place whilst this inquiry was pending, without my direction. If any one officially required a post-mortem, the Coroner should have been communicated with, but I was not communicated with.

Detective Mcllveney: I took my inst ructions from my superior officer. Witness: If I am ordered by the police to carry this work out, am I supposed to refuse?*

The Coroner : 1 am not speaking of that. What I say is that no post-mortem should take place whilst the inquest is pending, without my permission. Nothing would have been easier than to have communicated with the Coroner. This is most irregular.

Mr. Singer: It is also unfair to any person charged. The Coroner said he would take no evidence as to tho particulars of this second postmortem, which was held without his knowledge or authority. A Juror: .' do not think the jury should take any notice of it. The Coroner : I would ask them not to do 60.

Detective Mcllveney said it was necessary to analyse some of the internal organs to ascertain if there was any sign of poisoning The Coroner: You should Have applied to the proper officer who had the matter in charge, aud that was the Coroner. If a subsequent post-mortem was considered advisable I should have been applied to. I would not have refused it for a moment.

Detective Mcllveney remarked that there was no evidence of poisoning. Mr. Singer: You have no right to say so, after the Coroner's ruling. The Coroner (to Detective Mcllveney): That is not the question. What was done was improper, irregular, and incorrect. Mr. J. A. Pond, Government analyst, who was in attendance, asked at this sUige whether ho might leave, although, ho added,, he had the Coroner's instructions to be present. The Coroner: Has your evidence anything to do with the child during life, or with the evidence up to this point. If so, I will take it, but if it has any connection with the subsequent post-mortem I do not want it.

Mr. Pond said he had a Coroner's, summons to be present. The Coroner said that the police applied for a certain number of warrants, and he (the Coroner) supplied these, assuming, of course, thai, proper use would be made of them.

Mr. Pond then left the Court, and the incident ended.