The Sun. — 1860-11-24 (London, England)

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 SolicitorGeneral 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 parchment, as required by law. The third part of the argument 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 another inquest was held the body must be disinterred. 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 authorities 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, concurring 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 instead 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 affidavits 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 coroner if we were, without reference to what he may say, to exercise our power, and not afford him an opportunity 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 justice, 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