INQUEST.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1452, 11 October 1878, Page 3

INQUEST.

The following is the conclusion of tho inquest on the body of Hugh McClatchie : Dr. Ned will, being sworn, said—T first saw the deceased on the evening of the 20th September, at a house in Kilmore street. I again saw him the following evening, He seemed to he in a low condition at the time, and complained that ho could not make water. Owing to stricture of tho urethra, I had great difficulty in passing a very small catheter into the bladder. Half blood and half urine came away. I prescribed for him, and saw him again the next morning. He was much in the same condition the next morning. I got a small catheter in tho bladder, but not being able to empty the bladder by this means I determined to aspirate the, bladder above the pubes, and draw oft' his water that way. Dr. Powell accompanied nie ou this visit, and was with me wfeon I aspirated the bladder about 1 p.m. the .same day. I saw the man again in the evening, taking Dr. Tumbull with infl, and lie agreed with mc the best thing to be done was to sond tho man to tho Hospital, and lie was removed there about 1) o'clock tho same evening. That would bo on tho 27th of September. That evening I again emptied the bladder. The next day Mr I'rius, tho other visitihg surgeon at the Hospital, naw deceased with mo in consultation. I attended deceased until his death yeb■erday. To-day I xa.Mlea.post-morteme&nminiitioti. H&ere were no external marks of violence on the

body. There was an old standing stricture of the urethra, behind which was a small abscess. The bladder itself was greatly disease*, the ureters were greatly dilated, there was abscess in both kidneys ; there was a small abscess in the right lung. The heart and brain were healthy. The cause of death were purulent absorption, which probably was owing to the case of structure of the urethra. There was nothing I could ascertain by examination of the body that could not bo accounted for by old standing stricture of the urethra. There was an abscess in the walls of the bladder, which had two or three ounces of pus in it. The walls of the bladder were greatly thickened, and there was a great congestion of the lining membrane of the bladder. I could not say how long the abscess in the bladder had existed. Almost certainly it occurred after the retention of the urine.

By Mr Hickson—My attention was not drawn to any outward marks on deceased when he came into the hospital. At the post mortem I examined the chest of the deceased, and found no fractured ribs. Tho retention of the urine might have been caused, in connection with the old standing stricture, by the pressure of a heavy weight on his body, such as a man falling on him, would cause. All I saw as to tho retention of urine could be caused by the old standing stricture. A very small blow over the abdomen in case of a man suffering from stricture of the urethra, and congestion of the bladder might cause effusion of blood. If a man had fallen heavily on the belly of the deceased some days before I saw him I should not have been surprised to hear that there was effusion of blood into tho bladder. By Mr Hickson—The death of deceased might have been hastened by an injury such as the assault described. By a Juror—l understood from the deceased or his friends that the deceased man had been engaged in row in a public-house before I saw him.

By Mr Thomas—After such an injury has been hypothetically put by the police, the time of the blood being effused into the bladder would be uncertain. Considering the state of the man's bladder, a drunken fit, a fall, a sudden chill, and many other causes, might have caused congestion, and subsequent effusion of blood into the bladder. Many causes, without any violence, might have caused the effusion of blood. In answer to my question the deceased said he was not an intemperate man, although in the habit of taking stimulants. There was sufficient oldstanding disease to have caused death without any violence. John Batley, being sworn, said—l am a barman at the Garrick Hotel. The prisoner was employed there as assistant barman during the month of September. I have known the deceased McClatchic for four or five years. A fortnight or three weeks back there was an altercation between the deceased and the prisoner. They were having words between twelve and one o'clock midday about some drinks. McClatchie was swearing at the prisoner, and calliug him a dirty b pig, and son of an Irish w -, and other foul names; he said he would split hia b head. Ido not know what led to the deceased calling prisoner these names. McClatchie made a hit at the boy over the counter. With that prisoner wont round and set open the door with a cork. As prisoner rose from the door, McClatchie made a ru-h at him, and struck him on the side of the head. The boy closed on McClatchie, and they both fell, McClatchie being underneath, and the prisoner on the top of deceased, who was holding him by the collar of his shirt and waistcoat. Prisoner had hold of McClatchie by the arms. They were both wrestling together, and they fell. This took place in front of the counter, McClatchie being unable to strike prisoner, kept scratching his face, and saying, " You would, you b , would you r 1" Prisoner said, " Yes, I will." A carter named Macfarlane then came to the door. He had been working with McClatchie, and I called on him to stop them, which he did. By Mr Inspector Hickson—When they fell McClatchie fell on his back, and prisoner fell his full length on deceased. Prisoner tried to pull himself off deceased. He was on his knees beside him but not upon him. _ I did not see whether prisoner was upon his knees on the body of deceased, because I was behind the bar. When Macfarlane came and stopped the row I took less notice. Prisoner could have had his knees on deceased without my seeing him, as Macfarlane was standing over him. Macfarlane separated the two, and McClatchie rose off the ground of his own accord, and he walked out and washed his face at the tap. There was no one else present in the bar, except an old man, whom I did not know and have not seen since. By Mr Thomas —After prisoner and deceased had got up, the latter wanted the prisoner to come outside and fight him. Deceased did not complain then, but he said after he came out from washing his face that he felt sore from the fall, placing his hands on his side. He did not complain of any unfair treatment, but wanted to fightagain. I told him he had better go to his work. I should take McClatchie to have been a much stronger man than the prisoner. He was very fond of fighting, and was of intemperate habits. McOlatchic never let go his hold of the prisoner, but dragged him dowu, falling together. The prisoner could not have avoide l falling, grasped as he was by the deceased. I saw everything that took place up to Macfarlane coming in, and I did not see the prisoner's knees on deceased up to then, whatever might have happened afterwards. By Mr Inspector Hickson —After washing his face deceased complained of being sore from his fall. By Mr Thomas—Prisoner, when down with deceased, threatened to strike him with his fist. He could have struck him ; but did not do so. Mrs Mary Ann Cookson, being sworn, said—l am the wife of Edwin Cooksou, late landlord of the Garrick Hotel. I have known the deceased by sight for some short time ; but I did uot know his name until after this affair. About three weeks ago I went into the bar, and the barman Batley, the second barman John Dempsey, McClatchie, and Macfarlane, were standing there. I heard the deceased and the prisoner had just been separated. It was about midday. I ordered the second barman, Dempsey, to leave the bar, as the other man Batley was on duty. I weut into the bar because I heard a noise, as of scuffling. By Mr Inspector Hickson —I did not use the words "knock off " to Dempsey. Archibald Macfarlane, being sworu, said —I am a carter employed at the Victoria Saw Mills. I have known the deceased for about five or six years. On the 16th of last month I was at the Garrick Hotel. I was there twice, the first time at about a quarter past 10 o'clock. Deceased went there with me. He asked me to come and have a drink. I did so. I left him there, and returned to the hotel at about a quarter past 12 o'clock. Deceased was still there, aud I went to my dinner, having first had a couple of drinks together. I returned again on my way to my work at a quarter to 1. I heard a row as I was going round the corner of the hotel. I went in, and John Batley said to mo, "Stop them fools, Archie." McClatchie was lying on the floor, aud the prisoner was on the top of him. Prisoner had hold of deceased by the collar of his waistcoat. I could uot say whether the trisoner's knees were on the chest or stomach of deceased, but he was kneeling on him. I did not see which way McClatchie had hold of the prisoner. I caught hold of Dempsey by the waistcoat with one hand, and threw bim off, and pulled up McClatchie with the other. I said, "'There is quite enough of this sort of work." McClatchie kept on calling Dempsey an Irish b and other names. Mrs Cookson came in just as I had separated them, and she told Dempsey to go inside and do his work, or words to that rffect. After that I believe McClatchic went home. McClatchie made no complaint to mo that day of being hurt, but he did tho next day and afterwards. He said he felt very bad. _ I think prisoner's knees were on deceased's ribs.

By Mr Inspector Hickson—l did not sec prisoner make any effort with his knees to yet off the deceased before I separated them. By Mr ■ honias—l am almost certain that the knees of the prisoner were on the upper part of deceased's chest, and one on each side, still I would not swear that they were so. As I was going homo to my dinner the deceased was calling the prisoner some very bad names, which the prisoner did not resent by offering to strike him. After I separated them the deceased, in tuy hearing, did not offer to renew the light. _ '1 lie deceased was in the habit of drinking heavily at times, sometimes for a week at a time, and then he wotdd remain sober for two or three months. He said the reason of his drinking on the occasion referred to was through something that had happened at his home. I do not know whether ho was drinking subsequently to the row. Deceased when tho worse for drink, was very foul-mouthed. I should say he was a much more powerful man than the prisoner. By the Foreman—l do not know of any illwill existing between the deceased and the prisoner. The deceased did not work after the row, but he did not attribute it to any injury he had received from the prisoner. He only said lie felt bad. He did not connect in any way the prisoner with it in niyihe iring. By Mr Inspector Hickson—l called on de-cea-ed three mornings in succession after tho row, and on none of those occasions did he connect the prisoner with his indisposition. These weic all tho witnesses. The Coroner said lie was railed by the police on tho 2bth of September to sec the deceased in the Hospital, as they wished to have his statement as to what had occurred. He accordingly

came and took down a statement on oath from the mouth of the deceased. He was proceeding to read the depositions when Mr R. D. Thoims said ho objected to the depositions being read now, on three groundsFirst, that they did not state, on the face of them, with what offence the prisoner was charged; secondly, there was no disclosure to show that the deceased considered himself in danger of death, but the depositions were simply taken at the instigation of the police; and thirdly, that the depositions were informal, as not having received the magistrate's signature, or any verification of its having been taken until this morning. The Coroner having explained to the jury the difference of the depositions taken on oath, as in the present case, and the dying deposition taken when there was no hope of surviving on the part of the deponent, in which case the deposition was valid even if not sworn to, then read over the depositions which had been made before him on the 28th.

Louisa Sparey being sworn, said—l have lived with the deceased for seven years as his wife. _ I remember going to tho Garrick Hotel for sixpennyworth of beer on the day of the quarrel, about three weeks ago. (Tho witness was proceeding to give her evidence when the coroner paid it was evident she was not in a fit state to give it, and he should decline to receive it.) The witness was ordered to quit the room by tho Court, which she accordingly did. The Coroner then charged the jury, explaining the technical points before them, and the room was then vacated for the jury to deliberate on their verdict. Previous to this Mr Inspector Hickson reminded the Coroner that it was possible that tho witness Sparey might have evidence of sufficient importance to warrant an adjournment of the inquest, as he was informed tlicit she was in the Garrick Hotel shortly after the scuffle between the prisoner and the deceased. The Coroner said he would consult with the jury, and the inquest could be adjourned if they thought the evidence of the woman material. After a short deliberation the jury returned a verdict of " Died from natural causes."