A SAILOR'S INQUEST.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1681, 23 December 1873, Page 2

A SAILOR'S INQUEST.

[WEL INGTON INDEPENDENT, DEC. 11.]

Coroner's juries, from various causes, have failed to make their decisions respected, or have much weight attached to them, and the holding <-f an inquest is very often nothing more than a solemn travestie of a judicial inquiry. The inquest held at Wanganui on the unfortunate man Edward Lewis, late second mate of the William Tapscott, is certainly one of the most extraordinary examples of "Crowner's quest law" that we have ever heard of. Without one atom of actual evidence the jury returned a verdict of accidental death, but they added "that they did not think the evidence was of a fiatisfactory nature." It seems the pilot, after taking the Malay over the Wanganui bar, left the ship, but three niinutes afterwards he was called back. On boarding the vessel he was told by tbe captain that the ■deceased had fallen when loosing the foretopsail, and the following certificate was handed to him with the dead body : — " This is to certify that Edward Lewis, late second mate of the. William Tapscott, fell from -'aloft when loosing the foretopsail while tow ing out over the Wangamii bar. Showed no signs of life after the fall. —3 ohn Link' later, master, barque Malay ; Gr. H. Twiss, chief mate, "Wa'nginai bar, sth December, 1873 " The medical witness said he found a compound comminuted fracture of the anterior portion of deceased's ' skull, which would most likely -have caused instantaneous death. The pilot said there were no signs 'of .'..disturbance when he was ou board the iVessel, and this negative evidence was blipplemented by a sergeant 6f police, who said " there had been no drunkenness or disturbance on board the Malay, so far asheknew." ,On these statements the jury returned a verdict of accidental death, but really there was not one bit of legal evidence to show how death; was caused. The mere certificate, signed by the master anJ mate, could not be received as evidence, and the only courses open to the jury were either 1 to say that there was nothing to show how death was caused, or to have ad journed the inquest in the hope of getting as a witness someone wbn saw the accident. It appears that it would not have been safe to detain the M a'ay ' ouraide the b*r, and she could not put back into the river, but tbe captain should have sent a witness on shore so that a proper inquiry might have been held. In this case there are no auspicious ciacumstances; but the man might have -been murdered for auglit there was proved to the contrary. IS is somewhat surprising that even a coroner's jury should have rettiifjfied .such a verdict, and more so that a' coroner should have Accepted it.