THE LATE INQUEST.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume VI, Issue 578, 27 January 1882, Page 2

THE LATE INQUEST.

To the Editor.

Sir,—ln your local of the 20th inst. you say you •' are astonished at the jury returning a verdict of 'Found drowned,' in spite of the comments of the Coroner, when the case was so evidently one of accidental death." Any one reading that would naturally suppose that the jury had been directed by the Coroner to find a verdict of accidental death, whereas ho did nothing of the kind, n.ithsr was it required. What the Coroner did was to point out to the jury the sanitary condition of the back premises, and thought some mention of it might be made in returning tlieir verdict. Tho jury did not feel disposed to deal with a matter wholly foreign to that for which they were called together; hence'

the remarks of the foreman, which were, that although the jury thought the premises in a bad state as regards tbeir sanitary condition (not water supply, as you have it), yet they did not think it in their province to remark it on that occasion.

If it had been myself only that was concerned, I would not hare troubled you with anything in correction, but it is on account of those gentlemen composing the jury, who have been made to appear most ridiculous.—Yours, etc., W. MEECH,

[The statement is true that the Coroner called attention to the swamp surrounding the box into which the water runs, and the dirt at the bottom, which, he thought, rendered the water unhealthy, and the jury refused to record any opinion on the matter, not thinking it within their province. After this matter had been settled, however, the Coroner referred to the fact of the jury returning an open verdict, and asked the foreman (Mr Meech) if it was really their intention to return a verdict under the clause which applies to cases where a dead body is found without any evidence whatever to show the cause of death. Mr Meech asked to see the clause again, and, after reading it, persisted in the verdict of " Found drowned," no juror dissenting. We are perfectly aware there was no intention of doing an unkind act; it was simply a blunder, and we called attention to it in order that it might not occur on a future occasion, for, in our opinion, to throw a halo of doubt and mystery over what was evidently a simple accident, is not a good thing. We are very sorry to have had to refer to the matter again, but were bound to justify and explain.— Ed. Mail.]