The Sun.
London, England, 1826-08-29 00:00:00

1401
'' ' .f I ''l
-.._______

o. 10,597.

RIGHT Op: REPORTING AT INQUESTS.

(From the Pottery Meicury, of Aug. 16. )
DEATH BY Boxisi66.-7-On Friday morning a fight took
place on the race-course, between Charles Hall and Mat-
thew Skinner;- they had previoutly quarrelled in one of
the booths,and proceeded to settle their dispute by pugilis-
tic prowess. They fought only two rounds, and when the
deceased was coming to the scratch at the beginning of
tlie third round, he'fell 'down, and shortly expired. This
is the second:instance within a few weeks, where drunken-
ness has been instrumental in causing the death -; of: a fel-
low-creature, for' both men had been drinking
k!revious to
the battle. An Inquest was held on the body,
and:a ver-
dict of manslaughter was returned.

REPORTING AT INQUESTS. •
The above Inquest was held (in consequence of the
absence of Mr. Dent), before Mr. Hand, Coroner, from
Uttoxeter. The Editor of this Journal was called upon
on Monday,mOrning to attend the inquest, as :juryman.
He accordingly proceeded, at the appointed hour, to, the
house where it was to be held. He had no sooner sat
down, prepared to report the inquest, than the Coroner
.asked him "if he attended as a reporter ?" The answer
WAS, that he had been summoned to attend on the
Jury, and that he certainly did propose' reporting the
proceedings." ,He was then informed by the Coroner,
that " a report would not be allowed to be taken." The
Editor very naturally asked " upon what authority this re•
solution was founded ?" and Mr. Hand read for his edifi-
cation what
,he styled " The opinion of Mr. Justice Bai-
ley," which declared that " publishing a report of an in-
quest, where a verdict of manslaughter or murder was'
brought in against any person or persons, was illegal, and
that the publisher was liable to be tried for 'a
nour,", as he inforthed him, " because such report might
influence the minds of Jurors when the case was brought
before them in a CoUrt of Justice:" The Editor then ex-
pressed an Intention of taking notes for his satisfaction, as
a Juryman, and was informed that this also would not be
allowed. In vain did he cite cases to prove that the right
of reporting was unquestionabletlitt when, at the in-
quest on the body of the 'Marquis of Londonderry, at
North Cray, an attempt was injudiciously made to prohi.,
bit thcattendanee of Gentlemen connected with the pub-
lic Press, the Coroner was severely reprobated by' all
classes of society—that seldom, either before or since, had
the right been disputed—and that Mr. Dent invariably al-
lowed full reports to be taken. The fiat of Mr. Hand
was---that neither as a Reporter nor Juryman should he
take notes. The Editor, disdaining any more of this
wordy contest; then informed him, that, though he had
been summoned to serve on the Jury, he was not a pari-
shioner; and therefore as he was hindered from doing
what he considered his lawful right, he should' not act as
a Juryman : he therefore wished him good morning, and
retired.

This is a simple statement of the caste. With regard
to Mr. Justice Bailey's opinion,—if he did pronounce such
an opinion as law, we must say, that he was singular in
it, for It is an established principle of justice, that it
fears no publicity to its lawful acts. There is an order
of the House of Commons prohibiting the reporting of
its proceedings, which order is disobeyed daily, during
the session of the Houie. This is allowed, because it is
the prerogative of Englishmen to know what passes there,
and every where, where their interests are Cemeerned.
We ask, is an inquest to be made a Star Chamber busi-
ness, because Mr. Anybody may adopt unconstitutional
opinions, and establish rules not only unfair but un-
just ? An inquest is a court of enquiry, to find how
a fellow creature met his death, and its proceedings can-
not be too public.
If the case had been one where premeditated 'malice
had caused the death .of a fellow creature, there might
have been a shadow of excuse for the refusal, but in this
instance the unfortunate man's death arose from a hasty
quarrel, as the verdict evidently proved.
This attempt at establishing new ordinances„ comes
doubly grating and disitgreeable to the people of the Pot-
teries, who, during the 40 yeara Coronership of Mr.
Sparrow, never saw such a ridiculous thing. attempted
and Mr. Dent has followed the same fair and honest
plan. lie does not want to introduce innovation, he is
satistied.with the established rules of the noble institu-
tion that our, ancestors have handed down to us. How
different has .been the conduct of Mr. Hand, from that
of Messrs. Sparrow and Dent. We have said enough on
this.subject : Mr. Hand his incurred a responsibility he
May. not be aware of, by refusing any person the right
Of reporting, and it remains to be seen whether this pal-
try attempt at innovation—this' unwise assumption. of
authority is founded on law or not.
We wish it to be distinctly understood, that We'
only arraign the act of Mr. Hand in his official capa-
city; we have no knowledge of him, more than what
has arisen from the circumstance of holding the above
conversation with him in 'public : but we have noticed'
the affltii because we think it our duty, as Journalists, to
insist on the maintenance of the right of reporting, and
because we will suffer no man, whether in public or 'in
private, to beard us with unfair or unjust opposition in 1
the exercise of our duty to our best friends—the public,
whose patronage we should ill deserve, if we were silent
on an occasion like the present.

(From the Pottery Mercury of A. ug. 23.)
In our Istat we mentioned that
the
Editor of this Jour-
nal was prtibibited by 'Mr. Hand, Coroner, from taking
notes at an Inquest,
stretch of authority is as illegal, RS its
shall show that this ,
edented. Who ever before this time
assumption is unprecedented.
judgment, when considering
heard of a
his mein Juror breeicil hindered from taking notes to assist
ory-40 a
given before him and his
fellow Jurors demanded "No one, we are quite sure.
what verdict theguelvie'den?
A. Coroner's Inquest is an open
Court—open to all daises
Of people, and every p vivtl.to pleases is entitled to,
The Coroner is au-
witness he proceedinpert
'person obstinately, resist-
to fine or commit "Y 'person
ing his orderi,
,in contempt of his
Record, the following
Record. That his is a Court of authority as Judge of
ahews-
- " The 'Court of the Coroneri
56. 2 liraui. P. C. 42.) is a Court of Reword,
by what man.
any one dies hi prison, ordeath, comes to a violent
_.
(4 1n5t.271.
to enquire, lial' P.'
whene
'
ner he coolie to his end,"— .4 nkekstone's Cont. 277'4
the of
Upon this principle it is, that he assumes -- bolder
.. .
aPpt'edvietowtizißen
opoberdtieernseferoti: 'tthalcisinlig;ownoetreltilll complied
we'
that
with his request, and took no notes, for we consider
the evidence,
the authority of the law is to be obeyed, no matter into
.d
whose hand it may be, delegated ; " for
to Judge Robinso) we
"tea the King's commission,
to 'whomsoever it is
.frl
O'er), the same as we would re-,
as Curran sat
verence the kin 'a crown were it cast upon a bramble.'
Pbßut we are clearly of opinion that. the Coroner has no
wer to prohibit a Juror from takifig . notes to assist
his memory : and his power to., prevent' any notes being
taken is questionable; at any event, it has been but rarely
exercised.
From the fact of Inquests being ratimily held in the
OPEN AIR, it is shown' that the pug have a certain right
to knew what is done, and by wkOM, in a Coroner's court;
and as this right is acknowledged, an inference may be
drawn faveurable to the right of Reporting; for that