CORONER'S COURT.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 7, Issue 248, 9 July 1915, Page 4

CORONER'S COURT.

ACCIDENTAL DEATH. An inquest was held at the Court House this morning in connection with fi*e death of the late 1 homas Laureuson, of Taihape, before Mr H. D. Bennett, acting Coroner, and a jury of six (T. Shute, foreman). Sergent Harvey deposed that he had seen th e body at the morgue at the hospital, and that it was the body of Thomas Laurenscn, farmer, near Tai- . hape. Matthew Wilson, drover, of Taihape, stated that he knew the deceased, Thomas Laurenson. He was in. his company on Wednesday evening. He met him at Gretna Hotel corner, at 10.20 p.m., and asked him if h e was going home. They went to the stables, where they got his horse. Wit- ( ness was riding another horse, as far jas O’Brien’s stables, and Laurenson was slightly in the lead. Witness | turned off into the stables, and said, - “Tommy, I’ll be out in a minute.” The deceased did not stop, but called back, “Allright,” and went on. In about a quarter of an hour afterwards witness was going home in a buggy, and when i approaching the bridge, h e saw the body lying on the bridge. Witness described the position of the body and stated that after examining the body, h e sent for the police and a doctor. When he left deceased his horse was just jogging alonf). He had 1 looked at th e road and could see marks showing where a horse had! apparently slipped and tried to recover itself. If the deceased had fallen off his horse wher e the marks were, it was quite possible for the body to b e in the position in which he found it. The deceased was practically a sober man when he saw him last. Fie had seen th e horse next morning', and there was a little road mud on one knee. Robert James Boyd, medical practi- . tioner at Taihape, stated that he was ' called at 11.20, p.m. on Wednesday night to see the deceased Thomas Laurenson. He found him lying on the bridge. Ther e was blood flowing from his mouth and nose, but there was no other external sign of injury as far as he could see. The man was quit e dead and had probably been so for the past three-quarters of an hour. From the appearance of the deceased and evidence gives that day by the previous witness, he considered the cause of death was probably fracture of the base of the skull. There was no evidence of foul play. The Coroner said he thought there was not enough evidence at present to warrant the certificate of death being issued.

Dr Boyd, continuing, said it was impossible to say from external examination whether the man had broken his neck. H e did not know now whether the man had broken his neck. There wer e degrees in the case of a broken neck, and in one case it could not be seen externally, whereas in another case, the injury would clearly point to a broken neck. In this case he was inclined to think that it was a frac. lure of the base of the skull, as the indications he saw pointed to that. To his mind there was no need for further examination, as there was no indication of foul play. He thought the evidence was sufficient for a certificate of death to b e issued.

Questioned by the Foreman of the Jury, witness stated that he had not seen the body since it had been taken to the morgue. He came to his decision as to the cause of death, through his examination of the body and the indications he saw. If he made an external examination of the body now, nothing would be gained as he would not be able to give any further infer mation.

As this completed the evidence the Jury retired to consider their verdict. On the return of the jury the following verdict was passed: That deceased Thomas Laurenson met his death by accident. The jury adds that they consider Dr Boyd’s evidence not as clear and definite as it might be. They also make a recommendation that the attention of the Borough Council be called to the danger to the travelling public of the bridge where thC| accident happened, and call upon the Borough Council to remedy the danger before further loss of life is sustained.

Th e Coroner intimated that one part of the verdict affected the last witness, Dr Boyd.

Dr Boyd asked the Coroner whether the jury, ,'would inform him ,'as to whether h e could enlighten them in regard to his evidence. He would be only too pleased to do so. H e was a public man, and as th e verdict would be made public, he thought he should be given an opportunity to further enlighten the jury. The Coroner said that the Jury had returned their verdict and he had no alternative; but to allow the matter to remain as it was. It was not within his Jurisdiction to do otherwise. The Court then adjourned.