The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-15 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 14.

Sittings at Nisi Prius, in Middlesex, after Hilary Term,
before the LORD CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)

WAKLEY, M.P., V. HEALEY AND COOKE.

This case for a third time came before the jury this
morning, and, as on the two previous days, the court
was again crowded almost to suffocation.
After the examination of a reporter of the name of
Potter, who proved that the report of the proceedings of
the inquest was a correct one, a mass of documentary
evidence was read. In this evidence were contained the
statements of Dr. Hall and Dr. Reid, both of whom are
abroad, the latter at the Mauritius. Both of these gen-
tlemen gave it as their deliberate opinion, having made
the first post•mortent examination of the body, that the
death had been caused, without any reference at all to
the punishment of flogging, solely by the inflammation
of the heart and pleura. Dr. Reid's statement also ex-
pressed an opinion that he had been very coarsely,
rudely, and unfairly treated by the Coroner when he had
been present at the inquest.
Dr. Warren was then called, and underwent a very
long examination. In the course of his statement ho
complained that the Coroner had not examined him. He
had been 33 years in the service, and for many years in
the 7th Hussars. Ho had seen es many as 200 men
flogged in his time, and the flogging of White had been
conducted in the usual manner, and he did not during
its progress remark anyeindication by the condition of
the man that ho was unable to bear or suffer the punish•
mont. The man was taken to the hospital after the
flogging was over, and there he had attended him. The
witness went on to state the progress of the healing of
the back, and then said that on a particular day he had
reported that the man would be fit for duty. On that
day, however, he complained of a pain about the left
side; for this he treated him, but the illness became
worse, and at length the man died. It was not until
after the death that he had heard of the man's visit to
the dead-house. That is a very damp cold place, and, in
his opinion, the pain of which the man bad com-
plained, and the subsequent inflammation which had re-
sulted in his death, had been caused by the sudden check
which his system must have received by going into that
room. He had heard the opinions which had been given
by Mr. Erasmus Wilson as to the cause of the man's
death, but from those opinions he entirely dissented.
He did nut agree with that gentleman. He was not
aware of any orders having been given to the deceased
man to go to the dead-house. This was about three
weeks after the punishment had been inflicted, and the
man was then considered to be perfectly well. There
were many backs which healed more rapidly than others.
This man's back healed very kindly. His death fol-
lowed the complaint in about five or six days. When
he found the man was getting worse he wrote to Sir J.
APGregor for further advice, and the result was the at
tendance of Dr. Hall and Dr. Reid. The witness again
complained that he had not been allowed to give any
statement on oath at the inquest, and added that the
Coroner had declined to take his examination on oath, as
he said it might turn out that he had been himself cri •
minated in the transaction, but be did permit him to
make a statement not on oath.

The LORD CHIEF BARON then remarked that it ap-
peared to be the practice of coroners to adopt that
course of proceeding. Now, he was of opinion, and he
believed he might add that the rest of the Court were of
the same opinion, that there ought to be no such prac-
tice in the case of any person who might come before a
coroner and offer to make a statement. The coroner
should hear the statement on oath, and if it turned out
not to be relevant he should then reject it, whilst, on the
other hand, if it proved to be important as applicable to
the subject of the inquiry, then in that case the state-
ment would be, in common with the other testimony,
placed under the consideration of the jury. Put the
coroner had no right to receive any statement which
was not given on oath ; or if he did so, such statement
would be just as much evidence to criminate the party
making it as though the statement had been made on
oath, because it might be used on the trial as evidence
L against the individual.