The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-24 00:00:00

TILE _ROAD MURDER.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (THIS DAY).

(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr.
_ _ _

Justice Hill, and Mr. Justice Blackburn.)

The Attorney-General, with whom was the Solicitor-
General and Mr. We'shy; this morning applied to the Court
to issue a writ ad nalins in respect to the death of Master
Kent. The learned gentleman argued that the inquest
ought to be quashed on the following grounds. First, that
the coroner stifled the inquiry by telling the jury that they
were not entitled to inquire into who caused the death, but
simply as to how i t was caused, whereas the Act of Edward I.
relative to the duty of coroners, directed specially, inter
alia, that the jury should inquire as to how and by whom
the death was caused. The second objection was that the
record of the information was on paper instead of parch-
ment, as required by law. The third part of the argu-
ment was that the writ ad means tnquirendunt must be
directed to the commissioners, as if the inquest was simply
quashed, matters could stand as though no inquest
had been held, and the coroner could only enter upon
any inquiry super visuin corporio, therefore, if an-
other inquest was held the body must be disinter-
red. This would lead to no beneficial result, and would
be a nuisance, and perhaps do much injury. On the other
hand, if the writ were directed to a commissioner they would
take evidence of the death without seeing the body. The
learned gentleman having cited a great number of authori-
ties in support of the three points above stated, said he
appealed to any gentleman having the proper knowledge
and experience to look at the inquisition, and say whether
it was such an inquiry as the case demanded 2—was it one
that would satisfy the ends of justice ?—was it one that this
Court as the chief coroner of the country would uphold ?
He thought it was not, and he believed that the Court, con-
curring with him, would at once grant a rule absolute for a
writ ad melius inquirendum. _ _ .

The Lord Chief Justice said, we are of opinion that in
this case there should be a rule, though not a rule absolute,
but one in the first instance, calling on the coroner to
show cause why the investigation should not be set aside by
the Court, and a writ issued ad melius inquirendu►n, and
the grounds upon which we think the rule must be to show
cause, and not absolute, are simply these :—The learned
Attorney General satisfied my mind as to what he has
stated as to the inquisition being drawn up on paper in-
stead of parchment—that would, however, still leave the
great question for us whether we should feel ourselves
called on to interfere where no one is prejudiced
by what has been done, and whether for the interest of
justice it is desirable that in the exercise of discretionary
power we should set aside the investigation on the ground
of the infermality which I have mentioned, namely, the
inquisition being on paper—not on parchment—that must
depend on the fact as to whether the substantial merits of
the case have been gone into, and a rightful result arrived
at. The facts and matters brought before us and the affida-
vits may admit of an answer, at all events it would not be
be just or prudent on our part to act on the affidavits
until they have been answered. I think we should spe •
cially in this case do so, as the judicial conduct of the
coroner is called in question, and the result must affect him.
It would not be acting in fairness and justice to the coro-
ner if we were, without reference to what he may say,
to exercise our power, and not afford him an oppor-
tunity of answering the matters brought against him. We
think that having regard to the exercise of our discretionary
power and authority-, having regard to the interests of jus-
tice, having regard to our duty to the officer whose conduct
is impugned, we ought only to grant a rule calling on the
coroner to show cause why the investigation should not
be quashed, and a writ ad melius inquirendum issued.
Rule nisi granted.

L ATV INTEL LIGENCE-( THIS DAY).

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)

A.PPEAL.,-JUDGMR:iT.-NORTII-EASTERN RAILWAY COIL

PANY P ELLIOT.
The Lord Chancel for said I am of opinion that the in-
junction appealed against was properly granted. His lord-
ship considered that the defendant had no right to work
any mine under the arbuttels of the Victoria-bridge, over
the river Weir, and that the 27th section of the act of Par-
liament prevented him from working his mines within 20
yards of the masonry of the bridge.

His lordship dismissed the appeal with costs.
(Before the Lords Justices.)
MARgHAM V. 7310RGAN..-PIIILLIPS V. MORGAN.

APPEAL.-T UDGMENT.- IN BANKRUPTCY.
This was an appea 1 from a decision of Mr. Commissioner
Fane, digallowing vo creditors' proof of debt against the
bankrupt's estate, Y,ord Justice Knight Bruce and Lord
Justice Turner revu:sed the decision of the Commissioner
—Allowed the proof:;, and dismissed the appeal with costs
out of the estate.