The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-14 00:00:00

CORONER'S INQUEST.

An inquest was held on Friday at the Workhouse, Gray's
Inn-lane, before Mr. WAXLEY,M.P., upon the body of James
Falkes, a police constable.
After the examination of police constable Patten (No. 137)
the man who was taken to the station-house in a state of in-
toxication, and who spoke as to the identity of Mt. Huntsman,
the doctor, and his giving the deceased and himself whiskey on
the night in question,
Mr. Huntsman said, in explanation, that all he knew of the
matter was as follows :—A policeman came up to him, and
said at was a very wet night or wet morning, or something of
the kind. It was raining heavily at the time, and the night
was a very disagreeable one. The pelicemam asked him for a
drain and went in with him, and had about a wine gla-s full
of whiskey in some warm water. The policeman then left.
He (Mr. H.) was sitting up for somebody coming in, and
he saw the policeman pass again. The policeman said, "He
would have no objection to some more of that same." Ile
(Mr. II.) answered he did not care about his having a little
more, and he (the policeman) had another glass. Another
policeman then came up, and they both had some whiskey, hut
nothing else, beyond half or three-quarters of a drachm of sal
volatile, wh;ch was only a stimulant The policemen left my
house shortly after they had the whiskey and water and sal
volatile.

The room was then cleared, and the Jury, alter about three-
quarters of an hour's consultation, in accordance with the
opinion given by Mr. Whitfield, surgeon, upon the post moi tem
examination of this deceased's body, returned the following
verdict :—" That James Falkes was found dead, and that his
death was caused by an extravamtion of blood on his brain,
produced by a fall occurring to him while he was in a state of
intoxication ; and that whether the said intoxication was pro-
duced by excusable causes or otherwise, there is not before the
Jurors sufficient evidence to prove."
The CORONER then addressed Mr. Huntsman. He said.
the Jury considering the statement he had himself made—viz.
that he had gone to seek for the deceased with the other
policeman after he had observed that he (deceased) was in-
toxicated, and had afterwards given him more whiskey, had
felt it to be their duty, under all the circumstances of tthe
case, to return the verdict just read. In the propriety of
that verdict he entirely concurred. Mr. Huntsman would
understand that he was not relieved by the verdict from
responsibility, for, from the evidence before them, the Jury
could not come to any o her verdict. The witnesses had
not been quite so clear in their statements as could have
been wished; but in all probability the Commissioners of
Police would institute a further inquiry, and that inquiry
would very like y become more useful when the policeman
who had been examined to-day had thoroughly returned to
his senses, for it was evident he was now in a confused state of
mind.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, March 12.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
ARUNDA LE V. BOWYER.
In this case the following reference was made by arrange •
mem :—The Master to state to the Court w hat title was
shown before the Bill, and in what respects, if any, that title
differed from that shown before the Master.
(Before Vice-Chancellor BanCE. )
His HoNoua took unopposed petitions and short causes,
which presented no feature of general interest.