Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-01-20 00:00:00

,TIIERN DAILY IVIES.

SUSPICIOUS DEATH AT TRANMERE.

The inquest upon the body, of Richard Garner was
resumed yesterday at the Queen's Hotel, before Mr.
Churton, coroner. The first witness called was
John Ackerly.—He said he knew the deceased. He
saw him about half-past one on Sunday morning, lying
down in front of Mrs. Bower's window ; his hands and
head were in the gutter, and his body on the parapet.
John S. Hurlock was in company with witness, and they
lifted the deceased to his feet. Witness then asked him

where he lived, and he replied that his house was near
Mrs. Brough's; Witness carried him a certain distance,
and then left him. The place where he left him was a
few yards from where he was found on Sunday morning.
By the Jury.—There were no marks of violence on his
face ; his body had not the appearance of having been
dragged.
John S. Hurlock corroborated the evidence of the last

witness.
William Kitchen saw the deceased lying► on the road,
about three feet from the gutter. He did not interfere
with deceased ; he saw three policemen talking together,
a few yards from where he was lying. He also saw
Mackin and Savage standing near. Savage remarked
that the name of the man lying on the road was Garner,
and that he was a tailor, residing in Fisher's Hillside
Cottages. He (witness) did not knOw whether the 'con-
stables heard Savage's remark. One of the officers
I tried tried to lift Garner up, blit he was not assisted by

-
the others. •
William Savage was next called. His evidence was
substantially the same as•that of the preceding witness,
with the addition that he told the offcers where deceased

lived.
Police-officer 116 said he saw the deceased shortly
before three o'clock on Sunday morning. Deceased was
then lying on the road at the top of Green-lane ; there
was another officer standing by deceased when he found
him. Another policeman was also present, but he did
not endeavour to remove deceased. Witness carried the
deceased a short distance, but could not go further as
the deceased overpowered him. He did not ask the
other officers to assist him in carrying the deceased,
because it was contrary to the orders of Superintendent
Smith that an officer should interfere with an intoxi-
cated man, unless he was also disorderly.
The other officers were also called, and corroborated
the above statement.
8 o
por
o to o Superintendentdeot
for
the
eiwth
to his officers, in cases of men being tbund drunk on
Hundred.calleHd.
the highway or lying on the road, were that such per-
sons should not be interfered with. If a man was help-
lessly drunk, as in the present case, he should not be
His directionsectiwonass
apprehended, unless he was also disorderly. He had
never instructed his officers to remove a drunken man
out of the road to a place of safety.
By a Juror—The orders he had given were not con-
trary to those given in the instruction-book, at; the
latter conferred a discretionary power'upon the superin-
tendent of the district.
Mr. Roper, surgeon, stated that he had made a post
mortetn examination of the body. He found several
bruises on the more prominent parts, but they were
merely superficial, and did not affect the cause of death.
There was also a contused wound, about' an inch long,
on the right side of the head. The wound might have
been produced by a fall upon the curb-stone or any other
hard-edged substance. Internally he found such
appearances as led him to conclude that apoplexy was
the cause of death. The stomach was full, and this
together with the exposure to cold probably accelerated
the decease.
The Coroner thus addressed the jury upon the evi-
dence which had been adduced.—l think we may con-
gratulate ourselves that this inquiry is not likely to
terminate so seriously as many of us anticipated. It
would appear that the deceased's death was caused by
apoplexy ; whether that apoplexy was induced by long
exposure to the weather, or by excessive drinking, is
entirely a matter for your consideration. ' Very possibly,
and 1 think very probably, the cause of death was
drinking, and that the- result was accelerated by
exposure to cold. Then, gentlemen, we arrive at the
question which seems to have excited a good deal of
attention in your minds, as to the conduct of the police
officers in the case. I have had some experience in
these matters, and my experience is, that if a man was
found helplessly drunk in Liverpool, Manchester, or

any other large town, he would be taken care of either
by removal to his own house; or, if a stranger, he
would be taken to the bridewell. particularly ih a case like
this, as it is quite evident that the deceased was a man of
drunken habits, and on the Saturday night went into the`
public-house, and left very much the worse for•ichat he
had taken. He rambled about from place to place, and
was, lodged in a water-closet, from which he escaped, and
was finally found in the street without a hat. ' He was
last seen on the street at three o'clock in the morning.
At that time, it has been proved in such a manner as
not to admit of doubt, that he was not in an apoplectic_
state. He was no doubt suffering from the effeCts of
drink, and was seen bi three constables, .as well as other
persons. It appearethat he was spoken to on this
occasion, and it is quite clear that he was merely suffer-
ing' from think. One of the constables tried to assist
him to his feet, and afterwards left him nearly in the
place where he was found dead. The constable then
started, and in the course of five.minntes the other two
policemen returned to the place, and found the
deceased still lying there. They simply removed
him from the street to the parapet, where he
was left; and I may take this opportunity of
saying to you that while the constables were there, the
name and residence of the deceased were given, and it
would appear that the latter was only a short distance
from the place where he was lying. It appears then
that only one out of the three policemen made any
effort to remove the deceased, and that one did remove
him some thirty yards in the direction of his house, so
that my impression is, that` had that man been assisted
by the others, the deceased might have been carried to
his house, and deposited there. I may also mention
that one of the constables was under the apprehension
that the man was in great danger, for he said' to the
others that if deceased was not removed,. he would be
starved to death. And I am not at all surprised at this re-
mark, knowing, as I do, that when a drunken man is'exposed
to the air, the weather takes greathold of him, and he fre-
quently perishes. This unfortunate man, at to unseason-
able a time was found in this place and left there, and was
found next morning a corpse. I cannot but confess that
it is a very, serious matter if the police regulations in
this part of the county permit such a thing, but I must
say that this present regulation should be, and I hope
will be, revised. I think that a specific order should be
given in every case, and that when an officer finds a
man lying on the road he should remove him either to
his home or to the bridewell, and I believe that this
practice should be carried out, as the police were insti-
tuted for the protection' of life as well `as property. A
man may be found suffering from apoplexy, anctleft to
die. Ido hope, that for the credit of the county constabu-
lary, who have hitherto under Mr. Smith's able training
been so efficient a body, that this case will act as a
warning in all similar cases, and that such parties may be
removed to a place of safety. With respect to the cause
of death, considering the evidence of Mr. Roper and the
other evidence respecting deceased's habits, I have no
doubt that the cause of death was apoplexy, that
apoplexy being accelerated by exposure.
The jury then retired, and, after considerable discus-
sion, returned through their foreman the following ver-
dict :—" We find that the deceased died of apoplexy,
and was found dead on Sunday morning at a quarter
before seven : that he was a man of intemperate habits,
and that his exposure to the cold and rain, lying as he
did for several hours on the public highway, accelerated
his death. The jury cannot separate without expressing
an opinion about the instructions that have been given
by the superintendent of the district to his officers ; and
the jury believe that if the police had not acted accord-
ing to the strict instructions of their superintendent, the
life of the deceased might have been saved."
The Coroner said he entirely agreed with that verdict.