The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-07-01 00:00:00

THE BALHAM MYSTERY.

The rule nisi granted by the Queen's Bench Division for a
further inquiry into the cause of the death of Charles Delauny
Turner Bravo came on for argument on Monday morning be-
fore the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Mellor and Field.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Poland, and Mr. C. Bowen ap-
peared for the Crown; Mr. Serjeant Parry, Mr. Mure, and
Mr Macnamara for Mr. Carter, the coroner before whom
the inquest on the body was held.—The following condensed
account of the report is from the Pall Mall Gazette :

The Attorney-General having moved that the rule
be made absolute, Mr. Sezjeant Parry said he need
hardly state to the Court that he did not appear to
show cause against the rule, because his inapression
was that the course which Mr. Carter ought to take,
and which he was desirous of taking, was to submit to
any order their lordships might think fit to make in the
interests of public justice. Mr. Carter would have
appeared personally, but he held in his hand a medical
certificate stating that he was suffering from a dan-
gerous attack of erysipelas, which prevented him leaving
his house. He therefore trusted they would not think
he showed any disrespect to the court by not being in
attendance. Before saying more he would read the
affidavit of the coroner. He stated in it that he Was
elected coroner for the county 04 Surrey in 1836 2—that
for forty years he had attstided regularly to his
duties, having no other duties to perform; and that
this was the first time any complaint had been
made against him in connection with his office. He
therefore hoped for the favourable consideration of the
court. At the time of the inquiry he had no personal
acquaintance either with the family of the deceased
gentleman or the family of his wife, or any parties,
relatives, or friends who were interested in the inquiry.
He further said that the Inquest was conducted
throughout in an orderly and regular manner, and
with a view to advance the interests of justice, and
that in conducting the same he was Influenced by no
personal interest or corrupt motive whatever. Having
read the report of the Attorney.-General's speech in
applying for the rule, he (Mr. Serpent Parry), did not
understand that there was any imputation on the part
of the Crown against the coroner of malpractice or cor-
ruption, awithat if any imputation was made it was that
he too soon clased the inquiry, and that he ought to
have received further evidence before closing it. Cer-
tainly he was not 'disinclined to admit that the coroner
had in that respect committed a serious error of judg-
ment, although his affidavit gave some explanation of
his conduct. The learned counsel then read other
parts of the affidavit to the following effect :—To the
best of his belief the coroner said the depositions taken
by him contained all the material evidence given by
the witnesses, and that no evidence was omitted which
had any real bearing on the case. It was not suggested
to him during the inquest that the deceased gentleman
came by his death by any foul means, and he saw no
reason to suspect any one of having caused his death,
and he did not consider that by any further adjourn-
ment of the inquest any evidence could or might be ob-
tained as to how the poison got into the body of the de-
ceased. He had read the affidavits andstatementa of Mr.
Johnson and Mr. Reid, and the statements of Mrs. Cox
and Mrs. Charles Bravo, and if his attention had been
called to the material facts therein stated he would
have again adjourned the inquiry. The coroner went
on to say further that he could not recall the words of
Dr. Johnson shen he offered to give evidence, but he
understood he proposed to give evidence as to the
cause of death only. If he had known he was
prepared to give evidence mentioned in his affi-
davit he would certainly have received it. He
left it to the jury to say whether the poison was admi-
nister by the deceased himself or by others or by acci-
dent, but after the evidence of Mrs. Cox that the
deceased had confessed that he had taken poison, he
regarded the case as one of suicide; considering how-
ever, the statements made by Mrs. Cox and others be
felt that further inquiry was necessary, and he humbly
submitted himself to any order this honourable court
might think fit to make. The learned counsel ad-
mitted it would have been self-evident to another mind
that inquiry should have been made as to where the
poison came from, but it was not so to the mind of the
coroner at the time, and in that respect he bad un-
doubtedly committed an error of judgment. Then as
to Mrs. Bravo, it was painful in such a case to call the
evidence unless there was a necessity for it, and the
coroner did not seethe necessity for it in this instance,
while as recarded Mrs. Ivr—tae- Urown,
that sh 3 suppressed, for reasons she gave, most material
facts when under examination at the inquest.
The Lord Chief Justice: The evidence of Dr.
Johnson was also most material, as he had been in
attendance on the deceased, and it should have been
taken.

Mr. Serjeant Parry said that he did not deny that
for a moment. He repeated that if he had committed
an error of judgment he deeply regretted it, and he
hoped the Attorney-General would not say he had done
more.

The Attorney-General said he Would go no further
than say that the coroner had conducted the inquiry in
a very irregular and unsatisfactory manner, which led
to a serious miscarriage of justice.
After a long discussion as to whether the finding of
the jury that the deceased died from antimony, but
that there was no evidence to show how it came into
his body was a good finding, and as to whether a
further inquiry should be held by the same coroner and
jury, or by a melius inquirendum by commission, the
judges consulted, and at length.
The Lord Chief Justice said the court decided that
the rule should be made absolute for quashing the find-
ing and directing the coroner to hold a fresh inquisition
with another jury. The inclination of his mind was to
treat the fluting as incomplete, and to say that the
power of the jury had not been exhausted; but that
would give rise to this difficulty—that the coroner had
closed his court and discharged the jury, who were
functus officio. On the other hand, if they quashed
the finding and sent down the case again, the
coroner would have no difficulty in getting a fresh
jury, but that involved the painful necessity of
exhumation and a further exposure of the body, as the
inquest by a coroner must be held supervisum
corporis. That, however, would be the most regular
course, and one most consistent with precedent, but in
adopting it it must be distinctly understood that the
court would not in every case of an open or incomplete
finding interfere, quash the finding, and direct a new
inquiry. They could only do se where they saw dis-
tinctly there had been a miscarriage of Justice, and
that further evidence would throw additional light
on the subject matter of the enquiry. They would
not lightly or unnecessarily keep up the excitement
in the public mind unless they saw some practical
advantage to be gained in the administration of justice.

The rule was then made absolute for a fresh inquisi-
tion before another ury.
The Attorney-General applied that the inquest might
not be held at an hotel, bat at the building where the
Surrey sessions were held,
The Lord Chief Justice said the court would not
fetter the discretion of the coroner in that matter.