Untitled

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3794, 24 February 1881, Page 3

(To the Editor of the Evening Stab.)

Sib,—-In looting over the columns of your contemporary this morning, I find myself alluded to in anything but a complimentary manner, in an article only exceeded in the bad taste which dictated it, by the utterjjignorance of the writer of the subject on which he writes. The remark in question affecting me appears to have arisen from the fact of my signing a summons for Mr Kenrick, the Resident Magistrate, to appear to-day in the case against Procoffi, and produce the evidence taken at, the late inquest, and, if necessary, to give evidence affecting the same. Now, sir, the facts are these : That an officer of the Resident Magistrate's Court waited upon me with a summons for signature, issued from the R.M. Court, and bearing the initials of the Clerk of the Court. I was informed when presented <o me that three Justices of the Peace had declined to sign it, but I saw no reason in that for refusing to perform one of the ordinary duties of a J.P. The three gentlemen in question, either from motives which it is not my place to assign, or from ignorance of what devolved upon them, put the bailiff of the Court to a deal of unnecessary trouble. And now, sir, to prove your contemporary's ignorance in a matter he professes to be able to judge. In the instructions issued to Coroners for their guidance, and which is deduced from the various Acts of the English Parliament, it is stated—" In all cases where it appears to him (the Coroner) that a further investigation should take place into the circumstances of the matter which gave rise to the inquest, to cause a copy of the evidence taken at the inquest to be forwarded forthwith to the nearest .Resident Magistrate " ; and further— " The Besident Magistrate is thereupon to cause such investigation to be made as may appear to him necessary." Now it appears that the Coroner in the present instance, acting immediately afterwards in his capacity as Eesident Magistrate, did deem a further investigation necessary, and issued his warrant for the apprehension of the suspected party, and thus knowing that a further investigation would be made, did, no doubt, what his knowledge and experience would suggest to him (independently of any instructions), keep a copy of the proceedings taken at the inquest for the guidance of the E.M. or Justices conducting such investigation, and which copy ought~to,be equally accessible to the counsel for tEe accused-. Now, what course was more natural than for the solicitor for the accused to ask for the production of this copy at the approaching trial, and who more likely to prodace it than its custodian, and to give evidence upon it than the Coroner who took the notes at the inquest? and I feel assured that either Dr Kilgour or Mr Brassey, the Coroners for the district, bad they been acting in the matter, would have furnished the copy of proceedings required, and been prepared if necessary to give evidence of the same. Apologising for taking up so much of your space, I am, &c, James Skene, J.P.