Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 29 Dec 1858
Page 8 Column 3
CORONER'S INQUESTS AT TAUNTON.
(Before W. W. Munckton, Esq.)
An inquest was held on Friday last, at the Somerset Inn, Somerset-place, East-reach, on the body of John HOWELL, landlord of the above-named tavern, who died suddenly at his residence on Tuesday last.
Caroline HOWELL, widow of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was 45 years of age. She was present when he died, about half-past three o'clock in the afternoon of Tuesday. He was standing by the table in the kitchen talking to witness in a jocular manner; a man named GRIGG was present. Deceased told her to go and lie down, as she had had no rest the night before with him because he was so poorly, and just as he repeated the words he fell down in a crouching posture against her. She sent at once for Mr. SMITH, surgeon; the deceased breathed twice after he fell, but died in less than a minute afterwards. During the last three weeks or a month he had complained of pains in his stomach, and particularly that morning; but he ate a hearty dinner about half-past 12 o'clock, and seemed better towards the afternoon. He was not in liquor, having taken nothing stronger than a little brandy-and-water. The man GRIGG was very tipsy.
Alfred GRIGG, a shoemaker, living in Somerset-place, stated that he was at the house on Tuesday last. He came in in the morning and remained there during the day. About 3 o'clock he was sitting on one side the kitchen fire and Mrs. HOWELL on the other, and deceased was standing in front of the fire. Deceased fell away very suddenly. He (witness) had disputed with the deceased about a shilling just before, but all was quiet then. He (witness) was in liquor. He assisted to lift him up, and ran away for the doctor.
Two females who were employed to lay out the body proved that there were no external marks of violence about it.
The jury returned a verdict of “Died by the visitation of God.”
At the close of the inquiry, the Coroner, addressing the jury said, possibly they were aware that the Registrar-General for England and Wales annually published a statistical account of the births, deaths, and marriages in this country, and those reports were sent annually to all the public bodies and public functionaries throughout the kingdom. In the last report the Registrar-General published a most important letter, or observations, relating to Coroner's Inquests, which observations had been forwarded to every coroner, he believed, throughout England and Wales, together with a letter stating that in future the annual volume would not be furnished to coroners and other official persons, on account of the Government objecting to the the expense incurred. Under those circumstances, he thought it important to read that letter to the jury, because there were many different opinions afloat as to the necessity of holding inquests in cases such as the one in which they had just been engaged. With their consent he would read the letter, if their time would permit:-
Life is still a mystery, and it ceased sometimes inexplicably; yet many causes of death are evident. It was known from the beginning that man can kill man; and the cause of homicide is not only discoverable, but, to some extent, controllable. The culpable man can be punished, with a view to prevent the repetition of the fatal act by himself or by others. In England, a special officer had been elected by the people, from the earliest times, to visit the body of every person slain or wounded, and to inquire into the circumstances of each case. The mere fact that the death was sudden, or that the body was found dead, rendered inquiry imperative; and it is accordingly enjoined in the statute (4 Edward 1.) regulating the Coroner's office.
The progress of science has created new forces, often fatal, and has produced new substances, of which our forefathers had no knowledge. Machinery is organised on a large scale, so that the lives of numbers of men are liable to be destroyed, not by malicious intent, but by the negligence of other men who have their lives in charge. Thus, great numbers die by railway accidents; many perish in mining operations; children are suffocated in bed, or are burnt by their clothes taking fire. Poisoning is not mentioned in the Act of Edward; but poisoning is now, unhappily, a common cause of death. Poisons are the most insidious instruments which assassins can employ, and they were evidently little known in England before the Reformation; yet the English legislators directed inquests to be held on the body dying suddenly, because death might possibly even then be the result of secret violence. Persons slain generally die suddenly; hence, it was made the rule to hold inquests in cases of sudden death. Such was the wise provision of the law.
A man is killed; the Coroner receives notice, and summons a certain number of men to inquire, under his direction, into the causes of the death, and to pronounce, after hearing the evidence, a preliminary verdict of acquittal or of guilt. The utility of the inquest is evident. It recognised, in barbarous times, the value of human life. No man could be slain without inquiry. It was a simple means of discovering the guilty, and it brought home blame to the negligent, at the same time the innocent were protected against false imprisonment, for “guilty” was not the verdict of a despot, but of a jury of twelve or more ordinary men who represented public opinion. The verdict threw a shield around the innocent, who, without the inquiry, might have been falsely suspected: it left no excuse for private vengeance: and, undoubtedly, the Coroner and jury deterred many evil natures from the commission of crimes which they would have perpetrated had not the dread of the inquest interposed. Lives were thus saved, and every man enjoyed a sense of security which the commission of murders with impunity would have destroyed in the great mass of the population. For, without the inquest, assassination would be the death of many men – the dread of all.
The Coroner's inquest is entirely a popular institution. The county Coroner is elected by the freeholders; and it is one of the great advantages of the inquest, that it engages the body of the people in the administration of justice; public opinion is thus never in favour of a man whom a jury has pronounced guilty. Assassins and bravoes have been shielded from discovery by people in foreign lands who have never served on juries. Through inquests, the English people have been taught also, to some extent, the action of general causes, such as nuisances, in destroying life.
Coroners are elected for counties, and, in some cases, for subdivisions of those counties; boroughs, and some districts, have special Coroners. England and Wales have 324 Coroners, some of whom appoint deputies; they held, according to Mr. REDGRAVE's returns, inquests on 21,801 bodies in the year 1856. The total charges amounted to £67,000, averaging £3 1s 6d. for each death into which inquiry was made. The charges included the Coroner's fees (£1 6s. 8d. on each inquest), and mileage (9d. a mile, reckoning only one way, from his usual place of abode to the body); medical fees for evidence, autopsies, and analysis; witnesses' expenses, constables allowances, and payments to jurymen, and for rooms.
By the findings of juries, as classed by Mr. REDGRAVE, it would appear that nearly 10,000 of the bodies died of disease, or in ways not positively ascertained to be violent; and that 11,936 died violent deaths which involved charges of murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide in 483 cases. Ultimately, 285 persons were committed to trial for homicide, of whom 109 were convicted, and 16 were hanged.
It must also be recollected, that 1,314 suicides are included in the return; and the importance of inquiring into these cases will not be disputed, for, if a man has destroyed himself, it should be known; and murder may sometimes be disguised under appearances of suicide. Besides the above, 3,183 bodies were found dead; and the utility of inquiry into all these deaths will scarcely be questioned.
War,
homicide, and death by wild beasts, are probably the principal causes
of violent deaths in uncivilised countries; but the development of
mechanical forces in a country is not always accompanied by
corresponding safeguards. Men are destroyed by explosions in mines,
for the want of adequate ventilation; by defective machinery; and by
carelessness. In factories death arises from unfenced machinery.
Railway accidents are sometimes accidental, sometimes the consequence
of bad arrangements, and sometimes of carelessness. Drunkenness is
frequently a cause of accidental death. The examination of the whole
series of violent deaths, shows conclusively that the Coroner should
sit in every such case, for the denunciation of the guilty, for the
comfort of the innocent, and for the information of the public, who
should be taught the nature and extent of all the dangers by which
they are surrounded; for some those dangers they will learn to avoid,
and many of them can be diminished or entirely removed.
Whenever a
death occurs suddenly it is wisely enacted that an inquest shall be
held; and in interpreting the word “sudden,” the fact
that the deceased has or had not been recently visited by a medical
practitioner should be taken into account. Under this interpretation
a considerable number of inquests is held on persons who die of
common diseases, the effects of which, if scrutinized by medical
witnesses, leaves little doubt of their nature. The supposition of
violence is thus negatived, and this decisive result is ample
compensation to society for the expense.
Virtually it is true that of 21,000 inquiries only a few lead to the committal and conviction of criminals; but the utility of the inquest in not to be proved so much by the number of crimes detected, as by the number of crimes prevented; and it is gratifying to find that homicide is comparatively rare in England and Wales. Few countries present so low a proportion of murders. Yet, the instant that the provisions of the law are disregarded, and inquests are not freely held, such homicidal eruptions break out as the poisonings in Essex, the atrocities in Norfolk, which Sir James GRAHAM feared “had resulted from an interference with the duties of the office of Coroner,” and the systematic poisonings of PALMER, in Staffordshire, who was executed in the year 1836. The increase of subtle poisons lying for sale in the shops, the increase of life insurance, and the immense number of violent deaths in England, demand the observance of all the existing safeguards of life. It was stated before a Committee of the House of Commons in 1851 that the constabulary of Staffordshire were instructed not to furnish notices of deaths to the Coroners, except when crime was suspected. And the Coroners were informed, that if they held inquests in such cases their fees would be disallowed. Under these regulations PALMER committed several murders.
The Legislature, in the year 1837, extended the inquiry under the Registration Act so as to make it embrace the cause of every death in England and Wales. The informant, in registering a death, has to answer the question: What was the cause of death? And in all cases of an inquest on any dead body it was enacted that “the Jury shall inquire of the particulars herein required to be registered concerning the death, and the Coroner shall inform the Registrar of the finding of the jury, and the Registrar shall make the entry accordingly.”
The inconceivable importance of these inquiries will be evident from the number of violent deaths, which exceed the deaths in all our wars, and may undoubtedly be prevented to a large extent.
The county Coroners pay the expenses of inquests, and are afterwards reimbursed out of the county rates. By a decision of the Courts of Law, the Magistrates consider themselves justified in deciding in every case after the inquest has been held, whether it was necessary. If they consider it unnecessary, they stop the Coroners' fees. The utility of the Coroner's office is greatly impaired by this state of things. The cause of death is sometimes not ascertained. He ceased to be responsible for holding inquests which are disallowed on no settled principles. Cases occur in which the Coroners refuse to hold inquests on the bodies of persons dying by violence, dying suddenly, or found dead; and in other cases they hold inquests for which they are muleted to the the full extent of their fees and allowances. The Coroners is thus degraded in the eyes of the country. His is a high judicial office, and yet it is assumed that for the sake of putting a fee in his pocket he will hold an unauthorized inquest on a dead body. The censorship is an invidious office, and is as injurious to the Magistrates as it is to the Coroner. They are appointed by the Crown; he is elected by the freeholders. The jurisdictions of the offices are sometimes conflicting. The Coroner holds inquests in prisons, and in county lunatic asylums, which are under the control of the Magistrates. The Magistrates are not elected by the ratepayers; and their limitation of the expenditure on an institution which has the protection of the life of the people for its object is viewed with suspicion. No unseemly disputes appear to have arisen in boroughs where the Coroners are paid by the representatives of the ratepayers.
The aim of the Magistrates is apparently to keep down the county rates. But it has been seen that all the expenses of inquests in the year 1856 amounted to £57,000, which is but a small portion of the country rate. The 324 Coroners of the whole of England and Wales received £29,068 in fees in the same year, being rather less on an average than £90 each. The mileage was fixed in the last century, and is evidently too low. The Coroners pay the salaries of their deputy-coroners and clerks out of the above incomes.
Of
all judicial officers, the Coroner appears to be paid on the lowest
scale. Yet his office is subordinate to none in importance, and its
requirements are high. Without a knowledge of medical jurisprudence
it is impossible to conduct satisfactorily an inquiry into the causes
of deaths, often surrounded by unusual obscurity. His duties are by
no means attractive. He is liable be be called upon to hold inquests
at all times, and the inquiries are often protracted. His mind is
conversant chiefly with deadly accidents; with the sudden deaths from
which people pray to be delivered; with suicides; with infanticides;
with manslaughters; and with murders.
It is the men undertaking
all these painful duties whose pay is constantly liable to be
disputed by the Magistrates. And no other judicial officer is paid in
the same precarious way. What would be thought of a proposal to make
the pay of the County Court Judges depend on the number of their
decisions, and to allow them to adjudicate only in such a number of
cases as the county Magistrates consider reasonable. The Judges are
not fined, as the Coroner is, when their decisions are reversed. The
Chief Coroner of England, the Lord Chief Justice, is not paid by
fees; and instead of a precarious income he enjoys a certain salary,
with a vested right in a pension. The Coroner is paid by fees, which
can be withheld by the Justices; his income fluctuates; and when he
is old and disabled, he had no pension to retire on.
The
subject is so important that it should be inquired into, and the
comparative merits of the pay by fees and by salary should be
carefully weighed. The unseemly contention between two high classes
of the officers of justice should be brought to a close. When the
Coroner's pay is placed upon a proper footing, several improvements
might be introduced into the conduct of the inquest. Certain classes
of cases should be laid down in which inquests should invariably be
held. It should be proclaimed that the inquest involves no suspicion;
as indeed its most important function is to dissipate unfounded
suspicions. Without an examination of the organs of the body, and
often without an analysis of their contents, the cause of death
cannot be determined, either negatively or affirmatively. And this
examination would be most satisfactorily conducted by one medical
officer in each district, who would become by experience expert in
manipulation, and sagacious in judgement. He might undergo, before
his appointment, a special examination in medical jurisprudence, and
be very properly the health officer of the district.
While all
existing rights are serupulously respected, and the selection is left
in the hands of the freeholders, it would perhaps be found possible
to diminish the exorbitant expenses of contested elections, and at
the same time to secure adequate acquirements in the Coroners.
Physicians, surgeons, clergymen, barristers, solicitors, now undergo
examinations. Why should not the future candidate for the office of
Coroner be required to produce a diploma, certifying the possession
of a competent knowledge of medical jurisprudence?
These
improvements would necessarily raise this important office to its
proper dignity, and greatly increase its public utility. The causes
of death would be ascertained. New safeguards of human life would be
provided.
The Coroner remarked, that in his judgement, coroners
ought never to be placed in such an invidious position, as to be
liable to fine and imprisonment if they failed to discharge their
duty, while, although the magistrates had no power or controul <sic>
over them in holding inquests, they still had the power, at Quarter
Sessions, of disallowing the coroner's fees where, in their opinion,
inquests had not bee “duly” (that was necessarily) held.
Although he (Mr. MUNCKTON) was happy to say that the magistrates of
Somerset had not adopted the course pursued in Gloucestershire, and
several other counties, still he was constantly threatened, by
interested parties, that if he held inquests he should be mulcted of
his fees. Mr. MUNCKTON then entered, at some length, into the origin
and history of the coroner's court. The law was about a thousand
years old, dating back to them time of King Alfred; and its object in
the detection and prevention of crime, did not necessarily involve
suspicion.
The jury expressed their concurrence in the remarks of the coroner, whose office, they considered, should be placed on a more independent footing.
At the Squirrel Inn, Church-square, on the same day, touching the death of Walter Barnes JENKINS, son of Jesse JENKINS, a carpenter, residing in Canon-street.
Margaret JENKINS, the mother of the deceased, (who appeared very ill, and was examined at her own house) stated that the child was 18 months old. Last Wednesday morning, between 3 and 4 o'clock, her husband woke her up, and directed her attention to the deceased; the child was at that time lying in bed on her right side. He was awake, and moving one of his fingers about. She took him up in her arms, and watched over him a little time, and then saw he was dying. Her husband called the neighbours, Mrs. BROWN, and Mrs. MORRIS, but before they returned with him, the child died in witness's arms. Deceased had been subject to fits. He fell down near the door one day last week, and bruised his nose, but he appeared as well as usual afterwards, and took no notice of it. The child had been poorly from teething, for a few days before he died; he had not had a fit for six months.
Mrs. BROWN gave corroborative evidence, and stated that, with the exception of the bruise on the nose, there were no marks of violence about the body.
The jury returned a verdict of “Died from natural causes.”
<NOTES: Alfred GRIGG son of John GRIGG and Mary, married Mary Ann WADE or WIDE>