“He was very good to me,” says the boy, wiping his eyes with his wretched sleeve. “Wen I see him a layin so stritched out just now, I wished he could have heard me tell him so. He was very good to me, he was!”
It may be asked, is the above an over-drawn picture of what is frequently observable in coroners’ courts? If answered in the negative! surely the time has come for the reception of additional evidence, with the view, not only to improvement in accordance with the age in which we live, but for the maintenance of the legitimate object for which coroners’ courts were first established, and which they profess to uphold in all the integrity of seeking _the truth_, _the whole truth_, _and nothing but the truth_. Under these circumstances it becomes an imperative duty to record cases where discrepancies exist or have existed.
Case 1.—In the village of R—, a few years since, a young woman denying her guilt to the latest moment, was one morning discovered by her relatives entering her bed room, apparently in a dying state. Observing the clothes saturated with blood, they sent for a medical gentlemen, who immediately attended, and soon ascertained that the cause of the hemorrhage arose from her having been recently confined. On accusing her of the fact and enquiring where she had put the child—with quivering lip and trembling hand, she pointed to the opposite side of the bed, beneath which, was a box, containing the body of a full-grown infant. Externally it appeared perfectly healthy, but the face was dark and tumid, especially the lower part and around the neck, a mark, as if a cord had been tightly held or fastened, was distinctly visible. At the coroner’s inquest held shortly after, the medical attendant deposed, that collateral evidence proved the child was born alive, and the mark alluded to, corroborated his opinion that the child had been strangled. On this evidence, and this evidence alone, as no cord, tape or missile could be found, the jury, at the coroner’s suggestion, returned a verdict of “wilful murder.” At the following Assizes, in Norwich, the judge who tried the culprit, elicited from the medical gentleman, that it was possible for the child to be strangled in its birth from natural causes—that the cord or funis belonging to the child, itself might surround the neck, and by impeding its birth, produce strangulation and death. Under the direction of the judge, the jury immediately returned a verdict of “not guilty,” and the prisoner returned home to her friends, who rejoiced in her acquittal, and believed her an injured person.