The Portland daily press., 1874-01-07
The BiddefOrd Inquest.
To the Edif0T of the prcas..

the causes of the accident at Kennebunk. AT
ter waiting in vain all this time for single
person or paper to vindcate his action, ne is
constrained by the pressure OF adverse crlticism
to speak in his own defense He seeks to re-
lieve himself of part of the odium of his course
by assuming to write sin behalf of the Coroner
and Jury to give their reasons for holding ''se-
cret session." He would not have anybody
suppose that he cares for himself! Oh, no! the
chivalrous man is acting only sin behalf of the
Coroner and jury" One thing, however, is
evident, be does perceive that he or they, one
or both, do need to have their conduct explain
ed and defended; and that il is not likely to
lind defender in any other person than him
self. Let 1t be remembered that the inquest
had proceeded openly for two days. under d.
rection Of the present County Attorney, before
Mr.. Yeaton made his appearance, and that the
present County Attorney would alone have to
prosecute, if cause for indcting any person
was found. When it is seen that prior to his
advent the examination was open, and immedi-
ately after the doors were closed, we can readily
see that it was Mr. Yeaton speaking then, and
that he was the man who closed the doors in.
tead of the Jury.
With the professional air of an attorney fl
ing brief in support of special plea, he cites
book and page to show that the coroner has
poaoer to exclude from the room all save the
witness under examination. That the Coroner
in the late inqnest at Biddeford had this po,oer,
is evident. for he exercised 1.-THE question is,
whether rightaAy or not? Lord Tenterdon,
C. in giving the opinion in The cited
by Mr.. Yeat0n, commences by saying upon
the state of the record it does not appear that
nlaInfItf into in fbn rof
the inquest which the coroner was about to
take, or any information to offer which might
further the objects OF the inquiry"
But the general question upon this record is
only, whether person in the absence of such
matters can maintain trespass against the cor
oner for causing him to be put out of the room
after his refusal to depart. We are of the
| opinion he cannot" That was all the issue in
| the case the gentleman quotes, and falls far
| short of sustaining the position he has taken.
| But that is an English case decided upon Eng
lish law as it existed in 1927. The reason Civ
| en- for it is that "the court of the coroner is
| court of record of which the coroner is the
Judge; and it is general rule of great antiqui-
| ty that no action will lie against judge of
| court OF record for any matter done by him in
| the exercise of his judicial functions" Will
| any lawyer pretend that this reason applies to
| the limited statutory duties of coroner in this
| State? An eminent text writer in American
criminal law. observes that there is no analogy
! between the office of coroner in this couptry
and in England. There the chief justice of the
| King Bench is the chief coroner of the conn
try, and t would be just as proper to claim that
Mr. Chief Justice Appleton is chief coroner of
Maine as it is to pretend to justify the course of
the coroner at Bddeford By the decision in
Garnett rs. Ferrand. Chapter. 139 of the
Statutes of Maine is at once the origin and
Limitation of the coroner's power. 1t speaks of
hlling his Jury from the bystanders and that
he shall make proclamation for all persons to
draw near" etc. Was there any similar
mr. nu Icl in, Iav Df E,,x~1
That the gentleman should search so far back
| in time and in the legal volumes of another
| country for his solitary case-after all so in
| applicable is significant confession that he
| can find no similar instance nearer home and
| of more recent date.
Passing over that large portion of Mr..
| Yeaton's argument which is devoted to reply
to your editorial which 1 do no not remember
to have seen, with the single remark that if
| secrecy in conducting inquestS be the proper
rule, no other prosecuting officer has hitherto
| known or acted upon it, and that he has mad e
| an exception and not obeyed rule, desire
to call attention to the Misrepresentation of
facts which he makes in his letter tuninten-
tionally no doubD and but for which this reply
would not have been made. A defence that
rests upon false statements should not be per-
mitted even in Mr.. Yeaton. He SAYS that
counsel for the Eastern Railroad "handed the
coroner written list of good men and true'' to
serve upon the Jury-and that his s'stout pro-
test did exclude one widely known and fire.
proachable citizen of Blddeford' from serving
upon the jury. Counsel for the Eastern Rail-
ROAD d1d NOT hand to the coroner any written
list. Such list was shown to the counsel in
the handwriting of the constable and counsel
was asked he objected to any, Then it was
that counsel for the Eastern Railroad seeing
the name OF the widely known and irreproach-
able citizen of Biddeford, suggested to the con-
| stable and others that as said citizen had SON
in-law who was chief clerk in the
| freight department of the Eastern road,
and a nephew who was the assistant
general freight agent on the same road, it
might be said that he was biased, because of
these connections, in favor of the Eastern Rail-
road. Further than this no objection was made,
Notwithstanding one of said Jurors was and
for aught that know is now, an agent for the
Boston and Maine Railroad in Biddeford. Not
agreeing with Mr.. Yeatons notions of secret
tribunals in such cases, and having ventured to
say so, L incurred his displeasure; but hoping
to survive the shock of such collision. gave
to the newspaper~Feporters all the facilities in
my power to obtain and give to the public all
the facts. saw no improperly in so doing;
and now after having carefully lead the evil
deDce as taken out by Mr.. Yeaton, do not
perceive anything therein in conflict with what
had previously been given to the public.
Still further MIR. Yeaton says that Sin the
presence OF the Jury, after witness had testi-
fed (all the counsel would permit him to) and
his testimony taken by the clerk and carefully
read again to him, the counsel proclaimed: i
shall not allow him to sign until am satisfied
with it. Now, MIR. Editor, your OWE and 9TH
er reporters and the public were present at that
time, and all know that the statement Mr.
Yeaton makes is utterly false. He may have
been told SO, but it is false nevertheless There
was objection made by "the COUNSEL to the
| signing until the testimony was read aloud to
the witness in presence of all, and the clerk did
not decline to do so, as the counsel at first I'M
| derstood Every Juror, the public, and report
ers OF whom there were several present, know
very well that 1.-THE counsel instead of repress-
inc avid ,.l,k 30, k-.x1 Ill
fully presented and in no way did he make OBJ
lection OF interfere with the course of the ex-
animation.
Mr.. Yeaton says or intimates that the coun
sci was persistent in claiming it a right to be
! present. etc. The only claim ''the COUNSEL
made was in writing, and was request and
was published in your columns the day after it
| was made.
Mr.. Yeaton further says that an attempt was
| made.to fix the blame upon the dead &C. What
| for? Who made such an attempt? Certainly
not any one in the interest of the Eastern Rail-
| road. Mr. YeatOn would have it understood that
| he desired to save the jury from certain infu-
ences. Who, then, is it that insults the ntelli-
gence and integrity of the jury? The average
| citizen will say, he who intimated the influ-
| ences he would shield them FROM
Mr. Yeaton Indignantly repels the idea that
| he was biased by his connection with the Bos-
| ton and Maine Railroad, Indeed! What Mr.
| Yeaton has done for the Boston &, Maine Rail
| road while acting as County Attorney, the peo.
pie of York County understand, and he knows
their verdict He may have done what he con-
sidered his duty, but that he may at times have
been biased by his retainer to give doubts in
favor of his client, some have suspected Per
haps. however, some English precedent would
justify any position he may have taken or if
not, he may find refuge i'll the obscurity of dead
languages. By the way was it the Coroner or
the Jury who repeated the Latin couplet with
which Mr. Yeaton ornaments his defe.ce?
In conclusion what possible interest had the
Eastern Railroad or its Counsel to shield any of
its employees from the consequences of their
own act? Much more, why should they seek
to attach the blame to any innocent person,
living or dead? Was not their interest to find
out who was really responsible for the accident,
greater than that of the public or any other
person or corporation whatsoever?
T. H. HUBBARD,
BIDDEFORD, Jan. 5, 1874.
END OF THE CONGREGATI0NAI. EMpuoo.1 u -