Untitled

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 92, 28 August 1878, Page 2

Tnn verdict returned by the Coroner's jury upon tho body of the unfortunate woman, Charlotte Taylor, has led to considerable discussion and not a little dissatisfaction. Several of the jurymen hare made assertions which, if they have any foundation m faot, reflect m the most, serious manner upon the conduct ofthe Coroner— conduct which has resulted m the committal of two persons for trial at the Supreme Court upon a very grave charge, aud one seriously yjeppflrdising

the liberty of the accused. In the remarks which we will make upon the matter, we wish it to be .distinctly understood that we are actuated by no other vootivc than to deal out justice equally to both judge and jury, and to sheet home if possiblo the blame to the guilty party. For our own part, when reading the evidence taken at the inquest, as reported by our correspondent at Foxton, wo entirely failed to see that culpable negligeneo could be attributed to any one on board tho steamer. All duo precaution scorned to have been taken for tho security and safety of the unfortunate woman, and the manner m which she effected her destruction was more owing to that almost superhuman cunning and decoption with which lunatics of suicidal tendencies are endowed, and against which it is almost impossible to guard, than any neglect, culpable or otherwise From tho very outset of the inquiry it would appear that the proceedings were scarcely en regie : for while both Mrs Wahlo and tho purser received no caution, they were examined and crossexamined 03* jury, constable-, and coroner, although their own utterances might be the only eridenco to deprivo them of liberty, and send thorn to gaol with a grievous charge hanging over their heads. But we do not wish to tako oxception so much to the modo of procedure as to the actual result of tho inquiry. Wondering that a verdict of manslaughter should have been returned upon tho published evidence, wo mado it our business to visit Foxton, and upon doing so wo were told by three of tho jury that it never was their intention to return a verdict of manslaughter ; and that when tho coroner drew the attention of tho jury to tho word ctdpatte, informing their that if recorded, it would bo virtually ono of manslaughter, and result m the committal of tlio accused, they asked him to direct them how to modify tho verdict, so that it should not have that effect, but that ho distinctly refused to clo so. If there be any truth m that statement, and if Dr. Rockstrow recorded a verdict which he knew tho jury did not intend to return, ho was guilty of conduct which should causo his instant dismissal from his office. We know that Dr. Rockstrow is inclined to be somewhat dictatorial and pompous while conducting coronial inquiries, but wo could not believe that ho could be guilty of such a gross injustice as to imperil the liberty of two persons bocause of the ignorance of a jury m wording a verdict, and consequently wo made every effort to sift tho truth of the statement alleged against him. As our reporter was ordered out of the room at the conclusion of the evidence, he was unablo to throw any light upon fche matter, bub we have tho statement of Sergeant Donnelly, corroborated by Constable- Gillospio, that tho reported conversation between Coroner and Jury is purely mythical. On tho contrary, both positively state that when Dr Rockstrow drew attention to tho effect of the verdict, one of tho jury — but nob tho foreman — replied, " Well, that is our verdict." It is well known that tho public wore considerably astounded at tlio result of tho inquiry ; that tlio verdict has boon very keenly and adversely criticised, and consequently such facts would furnish a reason why tho jury should wish to shift responsibility of so grave a character from their shoulders. Wo do not assert that such is actually the case ; wo merely say that there remains an interested motive to account for tho rejection by thorn' of the verdict recorded ; wherein to absolve tho Coroner from the gravo charge brought against him, we have tho voluntary statements of two disinterested and impartial witnesses, mado at different times, and each independent of tho other. There is ono thing suro m thi3 mass of contradiction, and that is — on tho showing of tlie jury themselves—that neither Chai-les Harnett nor Wilhelmina Waldo are guilty of tho crime for which they have been committed; that the verdict should never have been recorded ; and furthor, that every day tho charge is allowed to hang over their heads will bo an aggravation of tho blunder, and adding to tho gross injust-ico under which thoy have already suffered. Tho mildest censure of a jury m a case involving loss of life inflicts a sharp stab to a sensitive mind ; tho stigma is ono not easily got rid of, and it is only fair that those who have so severely suffered by tho stupid blundering of either judgo or jury should have reparation mado to the fullest without dolay. Tho jurymen say thoy did not lay the death of the woman at the hands of tho accused, aud it is the duty of tho Coroner to place tho matter before tho Minister of tho Department of which lie is an official, and have the error rectified. Should ho fail to do so, then it is the bounden duty of tho jury whoso verdict has been misconstrncd to aco tha 1 ; ju3tico is quiokly d jiio to tho victims of tho mistake.