DEATH OF BOY.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 638, 16 December 1932, Page 11

DEATH OF BOY.

Asphyxia Was Caused by Hanging. EVIDENCE AT INQUEST. “There is no evidence of any other person being concerned in the hanging other than the boy himself,” said the Coroner, Mr E. D. Mosley, yesterday, at the conclusion of the inquest into the death of Ronald Francis Stacey, - the thirteen-year-old son of Mr A. F. Stacey. The Coroner found that death was the result of asphyxia due to hanging, associated with congestion of the brain and oedima of the lungs. The boy was found in a state of collapse in the bathroom of his home at 112, Avonside Drive, on the night of November 23 The inquiry was opened on November 24, but adjourned for the purpose of a post-mortem examination, following statements made by the father. “It is very unfortunate,” said the Coroner, “ that the issue has been somewhat clouded by the unfortunate attitude taken by the father. I can well understand that, under the stress of circumstances, the father should be very much distressed and perturbed, and probably one can almost forgive him for the action he took, but it is difficult to understand his action all the same. “ The same result could have been obtained with less publicity, less expense to the Court, and less trouble generally if the inquest had been allowed to take its normal course. However, it has been probed to the bottom, and it became necessary to get expert assistance, and we are fortunate in Christchurch in having a most reliable pathologist in Dr Pearson. I am perfectly satisfied that the conclusions he has come to are logical and in accordance with the pathological findings.” “In other words,” said Mr Acland, who appeared for the father, “it is an open verdict.” “You have heard it, Mr Acland.” said the Coroner, “ and I have no comment to make.” Medical Evidence. During the proceedings counsel produced a copy of Taylor’s “Medical Jurisprudence” with the object of establishing that it was possible that the boy accidentally hanged himself when experimenting. Counsel quoted a case where a boy had hanged himself under such circumstances. Dr Pearson, pathologist at the Christchurch Hospital, agreed that accidental hangings did occur, particularly with boys who were actuated with curiosity to find out what hanging was like. Dr \V. Hamilton, house surgeon at the Public Hospital, stated that the facts before the Court were consistent with accidental hanging. Dr Hamilton, in his evidence, said that when the boy was admitted there was a red mark round his neck. 1 he boy was admitted about 11.5 pm-

and died at 1.55 a.m. the following day. The father stated that the boy was found lying naked in the bathToom. Constable T. G. Flewellen said that on the morning of November 24 he visited the boy’s home. He saw the father of the boy, and was taken upstairs to the bathroom. There witness found a piece of sheeting tied to the top of the panelling of ' the shower, which stood in a recess. On the floor was another piece of sheeting which had broken from the larger piece. At one end of the piece on the floor was a knot. There were slight bloodstains on the floor. There was no bulb in the point in the bathroom. Mr Stacey said he was too upset to make a statement. Mother’s Evidence. Florence May Stacey, mother of the boy. gave evidence of finding the boy in the bathroom and taking him to the hospital. When she returned home again she went to the bathroom and saw the sheeting. It did not appear as if the sheeting had been thrown over the rail by the panelling as the dust had not been removed. She did not realise what the sheeting indicated, as it was impossible for the boy to have put the sheeting there. She had tried it herself and could not do it. To Mr Acland: The boy had been cheerful and happy. It was possible that he had been swinging on the sheeting, which had broken and he had fallen over, striking his head on the hand basin. Arthur Francis Stacey gave addi- i tional evidence to that at the opening j of the inquest. He believed that the boy died accidentally. He did not think the boy had met with foul play. I To Mr Acland, witness said that no | one knew what actually happened, j

There was no reason why the boy should attempt his own life. Dr Pearson, pathologist at the hospital, said that he had conducted a postmortem examination of the boy’s body. The cause of death in his opinion was asphyxia due to hanging and associated with congestion of the brain and oedema of the lungs. He could not agree with the suggestion that the boy fainted and fell over, striking his head. He found nothing in his examination to substantiate these suggestions. Had the boy struck his head the doctor would expect to find a bruise. He could not say on the post-mortem alone what actually happened.