The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-05-01 00:00:00

WEST DERBY UNION.-YESTERDAY.

The usual weekly meeting of this board was held in the
workhouse, West Derby, at twelve o'clock yesterday. Mr
Joseph Harrison presided, and the other guardians present
were Messrs. Lunt, Callis, Siddeley, Richmond, Pickup,
Leyland, Wilson, Baynes, Mawdsley, Edwards, Abraham,
Evans' Johns, Elias, Sagar, Heyea, Medcalf, Pitts, John-
son, Batten, Whitby, Birch, and Wensley.
The following cheques for outdoor relief were signed:—
Mr. Potts £176, Mr. Olney £26, Mr. Lytbgue £2O.
The hospital returns shewed that the number in the
hospital at the close of last week was 99 ; admitted since,
8 ; discharged, 18 ; dead, 1 ; remaining. 88. The number
in the hospital the corresponding week of the previous
year, was 55. _ _ _

- -
A communication was read from the poor-law commis-
sioners, calling attention to the dietary used far children,
and recommending that two new dietary scales be drawn
up. Two new dietaries were submitted for the purpose.
Mr. Wens'ey moved that the subject be referred to the
'risitilg committee.

Mr.-Abrahams seconded thn motion, which was adopted.

SCOTCH AND IRISH PAUPERS' REMOVAL BILL,

gatin
The Coroner thanked the jury for the observation, and
went on to say that his remarks should he made as slowly
and as dispassionately as possible, in order that they might
be brought before the public in their true light. The verdict
they had just recorded against the man Jones had placed
him in an awful position, and well might the jnry regret
that the prisoner—the accused he meant, but he was so
in the habit of calling them prisoners as they were always
before him, that he had forgot—was not before them, in
order that he might, if he had been there, have said some-
thing to have reduced the verdict from that of murder to one
of manslaughter. They would naturally ask, " Why was he
not there ?" And they were entitled to know why he was
not. Therefore, after the expression of opinion by the
jury, he had more confidence in going into the matter.
The moment the case was brought under his notice, he
felt it his duty to make an application to the stipendiary
magistrate of that town, for au order to have the prisoner
brought before him and the jury, as was the usual practice.
In writing the letter be had a two-fold object in view.
one was to give that gentleman (Nfr. Mansfield) notice of
the actual 'result of the case, and the other was in order
to afford the accused an opportunity of being before the
jury, and of hearing the evidence brought forward. The
following is the letter and the reply :
Coroner's Court, Lord street, 29th April, 1856.
Dear Sir,—l am now holding an inquest on the body of
Isabella Brew, whose death has, been occasioned by violence,
occasioned by James Hodson Jones, who is at present in the
borough gaol under a remand from your court. I propose
adjourning the case until to-morrow, at the hour of one
o'clock, and will thank you to give directions for the prisoner's
being brought before me and the jury at that t;tne.—l remain,
dear sir, yours faithfully, P. F. CURRY, Coroner.
J. S. Mansfield, Esq., &c.
Shortly afterwards I received a reply, of which the
following is likewise a copy
Session-house, Liverpool, 29th April, 1856.
Dear Sir,—lt is from no disrespect personally to yourself
or to your office that I decline to comply with your request of
this date. lam not aware that I have any right to order a
prisoner to be brought from the borough gaol for any 'other
purpose than to continue his examination, or to accept bail for
him.—l am, dear sir, your's faithfully, J. S. MANSFIELD.
P. F. Curry, Esq., &c.
The Coroner proceeded to say, that after the case was
adjourned on the previous day, he waited on the mayor,
and told him the circumstances of the case which he had to
bring under his notice—not so much as mayor, but as the
chief magistrate of the borough, which he became when he
undertook the mayoralty, and requested that he would
summon the town clerk to assist him. He (the Coroner)
was received most courtiously and politely, and the deputy
town clerk, the town clerk being in London, attended. He
(the Coronet) handed in a copy of his letter to Mr. Mans-
field, and that gentleman's reply, observing that he did not
wish to be placed in an unpleasant position, and that he
should lay the correspondence before the jury. The mayor
said, he regretted exceedingly that he could not interfere,
but he led him (the Coroner) to believe, not by words, but
by "expressing his regret," that if he had the power, he
would have done so. Under those circumstances, it
became his duty to make a few observations to
the jury, with regard to the law affecting the
appointment of coroner's and of magistrates, of neces-
sity those observations must savour of personality, but
he disclaimed any feeling of vanity on the matter, and
what he said on the subject would refer to the offices of
coroner's and stipendiary magistrates generally. Many on
the bench of magistrates were his personal friends, there-
fore he would not intentionally insult them, or any other
person, but in the performance of what he conceived to ba
his duty he did not care who he offended. Therefore what
he had to say, he would sey fearlessly. He wanted to know
what authority the stipendiary magistrate of this town had
to prevent a prisoner being brought before him ? Where
was his legal authority to interfere in cases of persons
charged with murder, or of manslughter. The coroner
then pointed out- the duties to be performed by coroners
and stipendsary magistrates, and cited various authorities
with a view of showing that the office of coroner was much
more ancient than that ofmagistrate, or thatof sheriff, a' though
the latter had superseded the former; but had he. he said,
lived in those days, he would have resisted it as the invasion
of a right. No power could alter the verdict they had that
day given with regard the man Jones, until he bad received
it his trial; in fact, although the grand jury had the power of
" cutting," or ignoring a bill founded on a committal by
the magistrates, they bad no power of touching a committal
from the coroner's court, Tnis he instanced by referring to a
case which had been tried at the last winter assizes, when
after the grand jury had found a bill of manslaughter, the
prisoner had been tried for murder on his (the coroner's)
inquisition. He next referred to Mr. Mansfield's letter,
observing that it would have been better if that gentleman
had omitted his reasons, as all he (the coroner) wanted
was the fact of his refusal and not his reasons. Having
pointed out the injustice which had been inflicted on the
man Jones, by not permitting him to be present
at tnat investigation, he said that such a course, if carried
out, could only lead to altercations between the
coroners and the magistrates, and supposing no other
mode was adopted, it was his intention to draw the atten-
tion of the legislature to it, with a view of providing a
remedy and to have the duties of each officer properly
' defined. He next alluded to the harmonious manner in
• which the two offices had been carried on for the last
twenty years, and concluded by saying that he had one
other observation to make ; but perhaps he might be
laughed at, and it might be said he was getting into
his dotage. He was going to quote from the Bible—he
loved the Bible, and in quoting from it he did not care
how soon he was in his dotage. He would quote from the
26th chapter of the Acts, and the 16th verse, when Paul
was before Festus it was said, " To whom I answered, it
is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to
die, before that which he is accused, have the accusers
face to face, and have license to answer for himself con-
cerning the crime laid against him." If it was on that, he
said, and that alone, he (the Coroner) claimed to have the
accused before him.
The conclusion of the Coroner's address was received
with marks of approbation from the jury, who stated they
unanimously agreed in the observations which had made
on the subject.
A brief conversation followed as to the results. sup-
posing the jury had refused to give a verdict until the
accused had been before them, and the court adjourned.