THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1880. A SINGULAR CASE.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2126, 16 December 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1880. A SINGULAR CASE.

We have had on more than one occasion of late to draw attention to the strange proceedings of Coroners and their juries. The last time on which we touched on the subject was when the inquest on the Opunake murder had been held and when Dr. Boor, who presided over that enquiry, distinguished himself by a total want of knowledge of the principles which should have guided him in the Court over which he presided. But in the case to which we now propose to call attention, it was the jury which acted in such a way as to astonish those who still pin their faith to the value of that ancient institution, the “ Crowner’s Quest.”

A certain Mr. Robert Brown died the other day in Auckland under the following circumstances ;—About two hours before his death he purchased 12 grains of strychnine for the ostensible purpose of poisoning dogs. Ho returned home and was shortly taken ill. During his short illness he made use of the expression “ I’ve done it now.” A doctor arrived and found the patient in a fit, hut it was of an epileptic rather than a tetanic character, which latter would have indicated strychnine poisoning. Mr. Brown was, moreover, able to swallow water with ease, which would have been almost impossible had he taken the drug in question. He then had another fit and died. A note was found in his handwriting, with the words, “My wife is a gem —a beauty. Good-bye. 7.40 p.m. Saturday,” just half an hour before his death. The poison he had bought had disappeared. Two doctors made a post-mortem examination, and could not detect the faintest trace of strychnine or any other poison. Brown was found to be suffering from Bright’s disease of the kidneys, a frequent cause and condition of apoplexy. He was, besides, not of temperate habits, for, six months before, one of the doctors had attended him for a severe attack of blood vomiting, brought on by drinking. The opinion of the doctors was that the c»use of death was serous effusion, acting on a diseased body, the result of Intemperate habits. The facts mentioned above form, it is evident, a very extraordinary case. On the one hand there is the purchase of the poison, his words and his note pointing in the direction that he had committed suicide. On the other hand there are the results of the -post-mortem examination, the character of the fits and mode of death leading in an entirely different direction. The absolute facts brought forward at the inquest must have led to the conclusion that he was not poisoned. A theory might indeed bo built that he had made away with himself; hut it could have been but a theory. All this was pointed out by the coroner, hut the jury returned the following verdict; — “ That Robert Brown, on the 27th day of November, in the year aforesaid, &c., in his own house then died suddenly, with suspicious symptoms of poisoning by strychnine, hut whether such poison was taken accidentally or intentionally, or administered by another, there is no evidence to show.”

It is quite incomprehensible how any sensible body of men could have come to such a conclusion on the evidence adduced. Presumably their ground was the disappearance of the poison, and what Brown said and wrote when alive. They seem to have attached no value whatever to the medical evidence. Of course, if they had not been satisfied with it, they should have said so, or demanded a fresh 'post-mortem. But they did nothing of the sort. Their theory is made to outweigh both the evidence of the doctors and the coroner’s direction. The absence of all traces of the poison, and the fact that the symptoms were not those of poisoning, were passed over in silence. Supposing Mr. Brown to have bought a gun, and to have loaded it just before death, it would have been just as sensible to have declared that he had shot himself. Their theory would have stood equally well, although there had been no gun-shot wound about him at all. But even granting that they were justified in passing over all the facts adduced, and returning a speculative verdict, what can we think of that verdict as it stands ? “ Robert Brown,” they said, “ died with suspicious symptoms of poisoning by strychnine.” Where were the symptoms ? We have seen what the doctors said. And the verdict proceeds —“ hutwhether such poison was taken accidentally or intentionally or administered by another there is no evidence to show.” Now the only logical conclusion of their own theory is that Brown poisoned himself. The sole foundation for that theory is that he purchased the poison, then used words which might mean that he had taken it, and finally that he had left a letter which might indicate that he was taking leave of his wife. How, on their own showing, could the poises have been taken accidentally or administered by another ?

On the whole perhaps no more idiotic verdict has ever been given than the one delivered over the body of Robert Brown. And it is a singular comment on the absurd virulence of a good deal of newspaper writing, that apparently because the “New Zealand Herald” has pointed out the absurdity of the verdict, the rival Auckland paper, the “ Evening Star,” has declared that the Jury returned an open (!) verdict, that they followed the ruling of the coroner, and that they were perfectly justified in their finding. The case is no dgubt an extremely curious one, well worthy of being preserved as unique in many respects. The verdict of the jury is also curious and unique, and adds another example to the numerous ones already extant of the singular lengths of stupidity to which a body of presumably rational men can at times go.