The Press.
London, England, 1858-08-28 00:00:00

CORONER'S LAW.

THE late lamentable occurrence on the Acton-
road has afforded another opportunity for the
exercise of a function which we regret to see
usurped by the dignitaries who preside over the
inquisition held by law on the finding of a dead
body. This function has more than once led to
a most unseemly conflict between the jurisdiction
of the coroner and that of the police, productive
not only of painful uncertainty in the adminis-
tration of a severe and strict course of duties, but
of a feeling of humiliation and shame that
occasion for such childish squabbles should
be furnished by an event so awful as the
inquiry how a human soul has been sud-
denly summoned from among us. The
function we speak of is the summing up by a
Judge of evidence necessary to bring an offence
defined by indictment within the letter of
a written statute, and this we contend not to be
the province and altogether beyond the scope of

822

the duty of a coroner. In early times, when law-
less violence was quite above the power of the
executive, and many feudal lords possessed and
exercised the power of life and death almost
unchallenged over their vassals and dependants,
paramount allegiance of all subjects to the
Crown and the consequent loss to the realm by
the death of any man within it was asserted by
the officer whose name (a clrona) marks his
duty. It was plainly to investigate the circum-
stances under which the deceased came by his
death, and, if possible, to ascertain whose were the
band or hands, as the case might be, who were the
authors of it. In no one instance is a power
of punishment or reward committed to him;
and the sole judicial act consequent on his exer-
cise of his office, is the finding of the jury or
inquest, to which they solemnly attach their
names. Such being the first step in the course
of justice—in fact, the inquiry whether the sword
of justice should be unsheathed is followed in
regular course by the inquiry before the magis-
trate and committal of the accused, and subse-
quently by arraignment before his Peers at the
criminal bar of the country—the whole essence
and value of these proceedings is their complete
publicity and impartiality; and such fortunately
has been the character that by a long course of
years has been justly earned by every one of our
courts of justice. But, on the other hand, the
importation of unnecessary and irregular disquisi-
tions, the sole object and end of which are the
self-glorification of the office, tend not only to
the bringing of the proceedings into contempt,
but materially hamper and entangle the even
course of law. So when the Coroner, on the
occasion we have referred to, observed in his
summing up—

" If Lieutenant CLAVERING and Captain MILLER
believed they were assaulted by a person whose
intention it was to rob or to inflict personal injury
on them they were right in acting in their own
defence ; but they had stated that, notwithstand-
ing the provocation they received from the de-
ceased, no thrust or blow was inflicted on him by
either of them during the affray ; and there was
the statement of Mr. LINGHAM, the surgeon, that
the deceased might have sustained the wound by
rushing forward and falling on the sword. Sup-
posing it possible that the wound was wilfully
inflicted by Lieutenant CLAVERING, no transaction
could hardly be of a more dark or brutal cha-
racter. It was impossible to say under what cir-
cumstances the wound was received by the
deceased ; but, supposing it to have been inflicted
as represented by Lieutenant CLAVERING and
Captain MILLER, by the deceased rushing or
falling against the sword, the
,jury could return
no other verdict except homicide by misadventure
or that of accidental death. 1f however, they
thought the wound was inflicted by Lieutenant
CLAVERING in the heat of passion, it would
without doubt amount to manslaughter. On the
other hand, supposing they believed he delibe-
rately and wilfully gave the deceased that stab it
would be murder, and as atrocious a murder as
ever was committed. Ile (the Coroner) would
express no opinion on the facts. The jury had
to look at the circumstances, and if they appeared
to them to brand the transaction as one of an
atrocious character their verdict must express
their opinion, or they would not discharge the
obligations imposed by the oath they had taken.
The maxim of English law was that if there was
a doubt, a person accused of a crime ought to
have the benefit of it. But, if the facts in this
case were not susceptible of doubt, the duty de-
volved on the jury of expressing their opinion
fearlessly in their verdict, regardless of conse-
quences"—

We contend that such questions arc quite out
of the scope of his inquiry; and when a demand is
made for the production of the accused to satisfy
a mere idle curiosity, as it appears to us, and
thereupon a disgraceful contest is opened up
between the police and the coroner as to the
custody of the prisoner, there can be no doubt
that a more certain definition should be authori-
tatively given to the duties of an office whose
importance is somewhat waning in modern times,
which perhaps may account for the undue
assumption of it. It was very well for the
Coroner in the above case to say he would
express no opinion on the facts, but the question
is, has a Coroner's Jury any right to express an
opinion on the facts any more than the Coroner ?