A MYSTERIOUS DEATH AND A PERFUNOTORY INQUEST.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 116, 15 May 1880, Page 2

A MYSTERIOUS DEATH AND A PERFUNOTORY INQUEST.

(Wellington Post ) A death presenting many features of mystery, and more than a suspicion of foul piay, occurred near Martoo, in the Rangitikei district, on Thursday last. From the report of the iDquest in the ■Advocate of Saturday last it appears .that the deceased man was named Charles Williams. At 9 o'clock on Wednesday evening he was found by a young farmer named William Bartlett, lying in the read near bis father's residence. The man called to him by name, and what followed shall be told in the witness's own words : — "He (witness) asked him what the matter was, and deceased told him that some person had given him some meat further down the roar 1 , and he thought it was poisoned. Deceased had two letters in his hand, and gave, them to witness, saying ' take these.' He then lay down as if going to sleep. Witness thought he wbb drunk, as he smelt of grog very strongly and he laid the letters down again by -him. After staying about a minute and a half, witness ratumed indoors and told his father, who said (he man must be dru&k. About half-past 10 o'clock witness. and his father went out to the gate, and heard deceased talking to himself. He was saying — ' Oh, father! Ob, father !' and « Christ I Christ !" He w&b about a chain distant from them. They went close to and struck a match to look at him. He was lying as if asleep, and was snoring. They did not touch him. Could not say if deceased's coat was on. Did not think there was any harm in leaving him where he was. Believed he had seen him before, but could not be certain/ • This evidence was corroborated by Mr Samuel Bartlett, father of .the last witness, who added that after looking at the man he went to bed. When he got up he cent bis son to see if the man was etill there, and the unhappy creature was found lying by the road-aide, dead and stiff, with his knuckles and nostrils partly eaten away by rates. We may remark en passant, that we hope there are not many other farmers in this colony who .think with Mr 8. Bartlett and his son that " there is no harm " in leaving to perish by the road-side a man who says he has been poisoned, and . who evidently is in great suffering. True, Mr Bartlett may not have liked his dwel-ling-house profaned aod his family shocked by the spectacle of a man .'.' smelling of grog," hut had he no barn, no out-house, and a little clean straw, to which poor Williams might have been removed, instead of being left to die by the road-side on that bleak autumn night ? We repeat that we hope there are not many Bartletts in this colony. This, however, is not the only noteworthy feature elicited during the inquiry which itself appears to have been conducted in the meat unsatisfactory manner. Many suspicious circumstances, obviously requiring tha fullest investigation, ?. ere mentioned, but there was really no light thrown on the way in which the unfortunate man came to his death. One thing is evident, and that is that the Bartletts knew more about him than they cared to admit. The deceased 'man told a witness on Wednesday that he wae going to Bar'tleti'a to •' raise the wind." When eeen betwesn 430 and 5 o'clock on the afternoon of that day, he appeared to be quits sober and in good health. He also got a friend of bis to write a letter to an aunt of young Bartlett, named Mrs Shaw, apparently one of the two which he offered to young Bartlett, and which were afterwards found by the side of his dead body. A police constable named Coyle deposed that he " questioned Bartlett, and he saiJ deceased was working for his aunt Elizabeth at Maxwelitown, and that something did not go right, and his uncle brought her away. He thought deceased had gone out of the district altogether. He said his aunt was enc:inte by deceased, and his uncle baJ brought her away." We pass by the novelty ot a witness being allowed by a coron-jr to give a secondary evllenca of this kirn!, but we cannot help remarking th»t it <seems somewhat extraordinary in the' face of this evidence that young Bartlett should have said that he " could not swear," to deceased being the. man

he saw by the road-side, and that Mr Bartlett, sen., should have denied point blank knowing the deceased, stating in fact that he had never seen him before. This is not all, however. The doctor who made the post mortem examination Mr Sydney Skerman, deposed that the deceased had acute inflammation of soma of the smaller intestines, which, together with exposure, might cause death; He added— (t The inflammation might be caused by poison. I think the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious (o warrant the contents of the stomach being sent for analysis. I I should prefer to withhold my opinion until such analysis has been completed," One would have thought that after this statement the inquest would have been adjourned for the purpose of an analysis being made, and that the suspicious ciroumstances of the case would have been probed to the bottom. Nothing of the kind however was done, arid for some incomprehensible reason the inquest appears to have been closed by the coroner, Mr A. Boss, in a very hurried and perfunctory manner. The letters found on deceased, we ate told, were read by the coroner himself, '" it being deemed unnecessary to make them public." The coroner, after readi ing them, explained that they were "of an entirely private nature, and of no service in affording a clue as to deceased's death." He then proceeded to state the case to the jury, showing that* "while the medical evidence pointed to suspicious circumstances, the deceased's death was quite compatible with natural causes." If the jury decided upon a verdict that evening, and the analysis afterwards proved them to be in the wrong,- the case might be reopened before the ".Resident Magistrate ! The jury were then told to consider their verdict, and after half-an-hour's consultation they brought in the following, namely, "That the deceased died from inflammation of the stomach and intestines, aggravated by the night's exposure to rain and cold, but how the inflammation was caused there is no evidence to show." We feel bound to add that the matter cannot be allowed to remain where it is. If the jury in such a case are to come to a decision without having the most important evidence of all before them— viz., that afforded by the analysis — and are to bring in a verdict blindfold, satisfied with the reflection that if they are afterwards " prored to be in the wrong," the case may be re-opened before the RM. Court," then coroner's inquests are a farce, and the sooner they are abolished the better. We sincerely hope that the whole matter will be rightly investigated by the Government, and that if necessary a fre3h inquest will be held.