The Sun. — 1821-09-18 (London, England)

EDITOR—III this country I presume that the humblest individual possesses an inherent right to canvas the acts of the Public Officers; and with this view I am induced to trouble you with a few observations_ on the public conduct of the Middlesex Coroner. Upon an election of a Coroner, he swears in open Court " That he will " diligently and truly do and accomplish all " and every thing and things appertaining to " his office, after the best of his cunning, wit, ‘4 and power, both for the King's profit, and the " good of the inhabitants within the said coun" ty." All the hooks agree in making it part of the Coroner's duty to state the law to the Jury, the Jury are then to find the facts, which is their verdict, and which the Coroner is obliged to take, if it is agreeable to law, but not without ; and I apprehend that if a Jury will not find a legal verdict, the Coroner is not compelled to record an illegal one, and that in fact an illegal verdict is no verdict. If the Jury refuse to give a legal verdict, the Coroner may adjourn them to the Assizes, where the Judges may fine them.—(vide 3 Buls. 173.)—Coroners have only to inquire of accessaries before the fact.—(Jenkins, 177, p. 54.)—1n -Manslaughter there can be no accessary before the fact,—(vide 1 Hal. 437.)----In the case of HONEY, it *as proved that his death was occasioned by a pistol-ball ; it is impossible that two persons can. at the some time discharge the same pistol, and, as the law says, there can be no accessary in Manslaughter, if Murder is negatived by a verdict of Manslaughter, it cannot be a legal verdict, but against the person discharging the pistol : and a Coro'ier recording a verdict again9t divers persons, when one only could be guilty on the face of his own proceedings, cannot be said to execute his office " for the good "of the inhabitants of the County." Coroners are bound- to keep to the rules of law in the execution of their office ; it is their duty to draw up their inquisitions according to those rules which' require certainty and ought to contain— gals, Quando, Übi' quid cujus quomodo quare.—(Vide Umfreville on Coroner's Law, and the cases there cited, Title Inquisition.) In the inquisition I am alluding to, the first requisite is wanting—the name of the offender : that alone vitiates the whole ; it is not a verdict against a person unknown ; it partly describes the offender, but it is void for uncertainty. It is the duty of a Coroner, after verdict of Murder or. Manslaughter, to issue his warrant for the apprehension of the offender ; to bind some person over to prosecute, and the witnesses to give testimony. What did the Coroner do in this instance ? he discharged his Jury without binding over any person ; he ought to know that the verdict was i I legal, and he omitted any subsequent act, as unnecessary. That the Coroner has the power to prevent an illegal verdict being recorded, I trust I have already proved ; and the only doubt that exists in my mind is, in what way he is punishable for not so doing. I should much wish a legal opinion on this point. Query—Whether a Coroner recording an illegal verdict against innocent persons, apparent on MS' inquisition, can be indicted at their instance for a libel ? That the Jury are punishable where theiiverdict be notoriously wrong, is quite clear—(vide 4 Black. Com. 361.)—1t is not to be supposed that the Guards will permit this libel to remain on record —they, of course, will move the Court of King's Bench for a rule to compel the Coroner to return his inquisition, which will be immediately quashed upon application, for the reasons above stated, which reasons will - equally apply to. Francis's case; and then, perhaps, the -Judges will deliver their opinions on this Coroner's conduct, for the direction of officers in similar situations. As some of your friends may perhaps answer my Query, I should be obliged by your inserting this letter in your Paper,—and remain your obedient servant, _______________________  A