The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-24 00:00:00

CORONER'S INQUEST.

On Saturday an inquest was held at the Anchor
and Hope, Stepney, berore Mr. BAKER, the Coro-
ner, on the body of Richard Herring, a cow-keeper.
William Herring, aged fifteen years, the son of
the deceased, deposed that his father had been un-
well for a week pair, and complained of a giddiness
in the head. On Thursday morning last his father
milked his cows as usual; but remarked to witness
that his head was very bad. He sent witness to
get his breakfast, and said he would follow, but
having waited a considerable time, and finding he
did not come, be went to look for him, followed by
his mother, when they found him in the well, with
his feet upwards; and with the assistance of ano-
ther person they took him out and sent for Mr.
Hislop, a surgeon, who for two hours endeavoured
to restore animation, but without effect. Witness
had previously given water to all the cows, and had
covered the well over with a board, leaving an
opening of not more than eighteen inches across at
the widest part, and the board was not removed
when the deceased, who was not in the habit of
drawing water, was found.
The Jury examined the well, and expressed great
surprise at the smallness of the aperture, and the
size of the well, which in diameter and depth did
not exceed a common wine pipe.
The boy was re-examined, and said he supposed
his father had fallen in accidentally. There was no
pail or other vessel, however, to be found near him.
A witness was proceeding to state that he heard
a call for assistance and ran into the yard, where he
saw the mother and son endeavouring to pull the
deceased out of the well, when a man abruptly
rushed into the inquest room, and called out, " Bill,
come to your work ; we can't get any milk."
The constable iramesliately removed the in-
truder, and on his return informed the Coroner that
the wife of the deceased, who was outside, had sent
the man in.

The Jury had just made up their minds not to
call the wife forward, from a failing of delicacy;
but they new insisted on examining her.
The constable went to fetch her; but came back
and said she refused to come.

The CORONER desired him to enforce her at-
tendance, which he did, with some difEculty.
Upon her entrance the CORONER inquired why
she had sent in that rude manner for the boy ?
Witness—Because I wanted him to do his work,
and you have no business to make him come to a
common public-house. I can't have my work neg-
lected for you.
Do not you perceive that you are addressing
;!entlemen ?—No, I see no gentlemen, I am speak-
ing to you.
The CORONER explained to her the nature and
object of the present inquiry, and asked her in what
condition she found her husband?

Witness—Why, I went down and saw my poor
dear creature's feet on the top of the water.
CORONER—Poor dear creature, indeed ; did you
pull him out directly ?—No, I could not get him
out. I got him out all but his head.
What, did you not get his head out ?—No, I had
not strength enough.
Do you swear that ?—Yes, I do indeed.
Do you suppose he fell in by accident?--Lord
knows, I am sure I do not (with a kind of laugh).
You never heard him threaten to destroy him.
self ?—Lord, no (with the utmost carelessness).
A Juror—Your condact is disgraceful, and o .
fensive to decency.
Witness—Oh, don't bother me. You keep me
so long.
Here she ran out of the room; but was brought
back and secured by the Coroner's order.
The boy was again examined, and stated, at first,
that his mother and father never quarrelled; but
being closely questioned, he afterwards admitted
that they used to have words about him, she being
his stepmother. He also added, that she was in
the cowhouse with the deceased the same morning
before his death; but lie (witness) was in the kit-
chen at the time, and could not tell what had passed
between them.
The woman denied that she ever quarrelled with
the deceased. She stated also that he had left no
property ; but afterwards acknowledged that he
had eight cows and a horse and cart, which she
thought now belonged to the boy.
The CORONER remarked that the improper con-
duct of the wife seemed to throw a shade of suspi-
cion about her character ; but, as there was no evi-
dence to implicate her, the Jury might, if they
chose, return a verdict which would not militate
against any ulterior proceedings—" That the de-
ceased was found drowned ; but by what means
he came by his death, there is no evidence before
the Jury.'
The Jury coincided in this view of the case, and
agreed that they could not conscientiously.return a
verdict of accidental death. At the same timel they
conjointly expressed their abhorrence of the vo-
man's behaviour.
The CORONER reprimanded
bet in severe terms,
and observed, that had there had been a jot of evi-
dence against her,
he should have felt it his duty to
have sent her before another Court.
She treated the business with perfect noncha.
power of the Coroner alto-
lance, and defied the
gether.