The Express. — 1846-09-15 (London, England)

DEATH IN PRISON. Mr. Wakley, M.P., held an adjourned inquest in the House of Correction, Culdl.ath-fields, on the body of Richard Homer, aged '23, cab-driver, sentenced by Mr. Combe, of the Clerkenwell l'olice Court, on the 29th ult., to 15 days' imprisonment fur not-payment to his employers of its. Juhnliomer, brother of deceased, and also a cab-driver, said that on Saturday, the 29th ult., deceased left home to attend the Clerkenwell Police Court, to appear to a summons on the part of Mr. Soliman Isaacs, of Great Ormond-yard. He had signed a paper, the witness believed, to pay I.lr. Isaacs fourteen shillings per day for the hire of a cab. Ile was committed by Mr. Combe for non-payment of that sum, and fur two shillings expenses. (The warrant for commitment was here produced; it was not accompanied by any other document, and the signature to it, stated to be that of Mr. Combe, was not capable of hang deciphered by any one in the inquestroom.)—The Coroner (to witness) : What is your practice in hiring cabs from their owners ? Do you sign an agreement ?—Mr. Isaacs' men do. We pay when we come home at night. If we do not pay we are liable to be imprisoned, should there be an agreement in writing, not else.—The Coroner : Cabmen, according to this account of the law, are treated much worse than any other species of debtor. I thought that the act of 1844, abolishing imprisonment for debt for sums under 201., applied to these individuals. The warrant is issued under the Hackney Carriage Act of 1843, but I think the debt a simple contract one, coming under the provisions of the act of 1844, and I do not think an magistrate has the power of committing to prison in such cases. The warrant is here, but it is net accompanied by the agreement between the parties, nor has the governor of the gaol the agreement ; and if Lis proved that deceased diedfrom the effects of confinement, some one may be guilty of murder, for I do not know whether the commitment is legal or not.— Mr. Hutson, a solicitor,who attended on behalf of deceased's friends, went to the Clerkenwell police-court, to see the agreement or the depositions which led to the deceased's sentence. On his return he reported that having made his application to Mr. Combe, the latter said, " I suppose you are come for food for an action. Bring your action if you like." He would not give me any information, nor allow me to see the depositions or agreement—Several prisoners proved deceased's death, which happened suddenly in the prison infirmary on Thursday last, and also that both deceased and themselves had every requisite medical attention. —Doctors Smiles and Boyd, who had opened the body, said death resulted from suffocation, caused naturally, and probably by spasms of the glottis, the effect of mat-formation of the upper part of the spine.—The Coroner (to Dr. Boyd) : Do you in the slightest degree connect the death of deceased with any treatment he has experienced in this gaol ?—Dr. Boyd : Not at all.—The Coroner : That is quite sufficient. —A juror : e are perfectly satisfied on that point, but I think we ought to express an opinion on the subject of his coming here.—The Coroner: I think not —After some further observations by Mr. Wakley, the jury returned the following verdict :—" That deceased die d of suffocation, and that the cause was natural." The" appended to it the following words : " In passing this verdict the jury express their regret that the law should afford to any magistrate reason for considering that he could send drivers of cabriolets to prison and hard labour for debts under 201., when the almost universal public opinion exists that imprisonment for debts under that sum is abolished ; and at the same time they express their regret that Mr. Combe, one of the magistrates of the Clerkenwell police-court, should not know better what is the courtesy due from one gentleman to another, and from one judge of the law to another, than to send such a reply as he had done this day to an application from the coroner's court by John Hutson, Esq.,solicitor, and they agree in considering the answer of Mr. Combe to have been in every respect improper, rude, and undignified."—