ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Patea Mail, Volume V, Issue 504, 31 March 1880, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

[Wis are at all times ready to give expression to every shade of opinion, but in no cane do we hold ourselves responsible for the sentiments of our correspondents.] (To the Editor of the Patea Mail.) Sxu,—l see by the report of the inquest on the late Mr D. O’Sullivan, that you have omitted my name as a juryman, but as I sign my name to this, the public will know that I was one of the jury. In the first place, Mr Editor, I am not aware.how yon obtained your report, but I must say that it is not quite verbatim, as the duly qualified medical practitioner in evidence states that death was caused by the displacement of the second and third cervical. vertebrae , which was the result of instantaneous death. "Those,” said the D.Q.M.P., u were the only marks of violence I could find about the body.” That is the statement made by the D.Q.M. P. to the Coroner and the Jury. ' Now for the remarks by the duly qualified juryman. As regards the statement of the D.Q.M.P. in reference to the body being in a healthy condition, and not a mark of violence discernable thereon, I can assure you, Mr Editor, that until we (the jurymen) went to identify the body, not one particle of clothing had been removed from the deceased ; furthermore, it was by our request that the D.Q.M.P, was made to retire and undress and examine the body properly (yet he stated that their were no marks of violence on the body). I do not quite know the duties of a D.Q.M.P., bat from what 1 have been told by a D Q. juryman, it should have been his duty to explain to ns fully the amount of injuries sustained, which was not quite understood in his postulatory, hut it seems to he a chronic habit of i he D.Q. M. \). to show as much disrespect to a body of honorable men as he possibly can. For instance, 1 understand upon good authority that at the inquest held upon the late Mr Adams, the foreman of the jury, in the most respectful manner, asked the D.QAI P. the question—had he ever, during the life of the

deceased, sounded or examined him to ascertain if there was aiiy organic disease.; His answer, I believe, was anything but satisfactory, in fact it was too indecent to introduce into public print. This is not the first time that the jury have been put to trouble' for information which should be given them without their being snubbed ; for instance, when our foreman of the last jury put some questions to the D.Q.M.P., he was called in a very sarcastic tone—the learned foreman. Does the D.Q.M.P. remember that we, ss jurymen, have a duty to perform for our country’s sake; but he, I suppose, docs it for the sake-of guineas. He should recollect that, and not try to make things quite so unpleasant, for I am sure it is not a very pleasant duty for men of business to be called upon to sit for hours upon a jury without receiving compensation, and then find a D.Q.M.P. (who is in receipt of Government pay for his attendance) there, who is not gentleman enough to exercise the same respect for the feelings of the jury individually or collectively, as he expects the same jury to exercise to his. Now, Mr Editor, can you inform me if the duty of a D.Q.M.P. is thoroughly defined ; and should that D.Q.M.P. in any manner show disrespect towards any juryman, foreman in particular, does he make himself liable for contempt.— I am, &c., JAMES LETT, D.Q.J.