Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The coroner: friend or foe?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The coroner: friend or foe?

    Hi Mike,


    For a thing that was held in the open, many times every day, and which was exported all across the world, I can think of few things less understood than the English inquest or the coroner. So I’m glad to see that you’ve asked some good questions here: http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...1&postcount=91. I have not tried to give you a dissertation, I know lengthy posts are difficult to follow on a computer screen, but since inquests are a major source of information for us, and in many ways they are downright mysterious, it really is worth the time to give you some substance.

    The coroner was an independent judicial officer who investigated sudden death, not just murder or suicide but other cases of death as well where there might be some area of public concern: prison, hospital, workhouse deaths, accidental deaths in dangerous areas like railroad crossings, explosions in coal mines. Really his business was to guide juries through evidence so they could return proper verdicts.

    I completely agree with Dusty Miller when he wrote “Remember the inquests were not made up of Whitehall Wallahs but people who lived and/or worked in the area”. That’s my view as well: the Victorian inquest is really about the community protecting itself. It publicized the need for reform or it protected reform that had already been achieved. Or, another value it had was to demonstrate to the public that institutions were working properly, like showing that the police were investigating a crime adequately, people were protected in prisons, hospitals were treating people correctly, etc. Verdicts were returned by members of the community, and the coroner was of their choosing. The jury could choose to ignore the coroner’s advice.

    For a coroner to withhold evidence or impose a verdict upon the jury was misconduct—in such a case an appeal could by made to the Attorney General to make a case before the High Court to quash the verdict, render the verdict void, and order the coroner to hold another inquest. In extreme cases of misconduct, the Lord Chancellor had the power to fire the coroner, but no power to direct him to action as the High Court did. The Home Secretary was obviously interested in the causes of death in England, yet had no power to direct the coroner to specific actions either. He could, however, request them, through Home Office circular (whether the coroner complied was up to his discretion).

    So the county coroner was directly appointed by the people, free to act without government interference in order to openly investigate sudden death and in doing so, often review procedure. With questions of homicide or suicide, you have the police investigation and then you have inquest, which is nothing more or less than the people’s open investigation, held by themselves and their appointed coroner, aided by the police and the testimony of witnesses and experts (of varied quality), using all their knowledge pooled together (even the jury was invited to use their own personal knowledge, and both coroner and jurymen could simultaneously provide testimony as witnesses while remaining in their official capacity, although that wasn’t the preferred way to do things). The inquest was preliminary only, and neither the coroner nor jury had any power to follow up on the verdict once it was over (though the coroner had the power of arrest). On top of the verdict, the jury could express opinions related to it in the form of “riders”, but these riders carried no weight, except perhaps in newspapers, which publicized them. Publicity was really the only way that an inquest could have any influence, and so the attendance of press was paramount, not only to publicize the proceedings but when the coroner really couldn’t be interfered with, the press was there to keep him honest, not to give him a venue to preen or posture in.

    There’s a lot that was right with the system and a lot that was wrong. Until the spring of 1889, coroners working in England's counties were popularly elected by freeholder. That includes places like the county of Middlesex, part of which the metropolis of London sprawled over in 1888, and the place where coroners like Wynne Baxter, Roderick Macdonald, Thomas Bramah Diplock and George Danford Thomas worked in their assigned districts: South East or just East, North East, West, and Central respectively. Coroners were elected for life, so I would disagree with your characterization that the coroner was an upwardly mobile person looking to further his career. Once elected, that was his career, and all four of the coroners mentioned above died in office, doing the same work they undertook in 1888. Their salaries were based on things like population, mileage, number of inquests held, so any raises they received (if they received a raise at all) are really reflective of the amount of work undertaken rather than a reward for a job well done. I think that for a coroner, there was little mobility at all, either up, down, or sideways--just more of the same until they themselves died. Perhaps there would be some new innovation or invention that led to new ways of dying, like the railroad or the airplane or a Great War would come along.

    Anyway, in the counties the coroners were elected. Until 1926, there were no professional qualifications for the office--you had to own property and win an election, that was your qualification. Practically speaking, you had to have money of your own (in medieval times the knight qualification was meant to avoid corruption; in Victorian times although you received a salary, you still had to pay expenses from your pocket, which meant the coroner operated from a financial hole) But of course you have to satisfy voters too, by giving them reasons to elect you. Anyway, there are three backgrounds that a coroner might have had then, only two being professional: a lay coroner (a person with no training in either medicine or law), a legal coroner, and a medical coroner. In 1888, the lay coroner was on his way out, most people agreeing that he wasn't the person you wanted to hold inquests or to advise juries on law, but he's still sticking around in some places for awhile yet. Although there was no official requirement, most coroners were of the legal variety--solicitors--while a minority had medical backgrounds. That was a national trend. There was a debate, one that had been hot in the first half of the 19th century, but which had cooled, over which coroner was best: medical or legal? A medical candidate would argue (as Thomas Wakley argued in 1830) that obviously the coroner's office required medical expertise in investigating sudden death. The legal candidate would argue that a coroner's job was to advise and guide juries upon law, and that the office was a judicial one--the coroner was a magistrate, and the only organ that could actually direct a coroner to perform a particular action, like hold an inquest, was the Queen’s Bench, the High Court, which had authority over magistrates (and sometimes over the years you see the Lord Chief Justice refer to himself as “The Chief Coroner”). In 1926, an amendment law was passed that coroners had to have 5 years professional experience as either a doctor or solicitor. Today there is a bill in preparation for a new law, which I believe I'm right to say mandates a legal qualification, so England seems to be on the verge of finally settling the debate (though I'm sort of fond of the medical coroners).

    While the national trend favored legal coroners, looking at our stretch of the woods, Middlesex in 1888, 2 out of 4 of its coroners were doctors (Diplock and Danford Thomas), with Baxter representing the legal coroner. Roderick Macdonald was the odd bird of the bunch, being a doctor who had limited legal training. Since he received this training after losing an 1886 election (the one that Wynne Baxter won), that was probably something that he did to help him win the North East district in 1888, which he did in spades--a kind of best of both worlds type of coroner that might prove attractive to the freeholders.

    But although there were no professional qualifications to become a coroner, not legally anyway, there was an organization that provided structure. This was the Coroner’s Society, which was founded in the 1840s, and provided its membership with advice. Throughout his long career, 1849-1901, Samuel Langham was heavily involved with this group, acting both as its Secretary and President. The Coroners Society is still active today; one day I hope to be allowed access to their archives. Also the Home Office issued circulars on procedure in consultation with the Lord Chancellor; these were discretionary as neither the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor had power to direct coroners to any action.


    Now you have the elections, which is where your question about politics comes in. Elections might seem the way to go when you're talking about an office that's there to protect the citizenry against dangerous areas, unsafe practices, or the government itself. Actually, it turned out differently. Tremendous sums of money were thrown into winning them, often there was violence, hardly a way to gain such a solemn office. People reasonably wondered, “What is so good about being coroner that people should go to all this trouble to get themselves elected?” They smelled corruption, something that had always been associated with that office, and which sort of originated earlier in the century when the coroner received no salary, but was paid per inquest. One thing you should know is that the 1830s saw a sudden rise in the number of inquests because of the creation of a new oversight over workhouses, death registration, and the creation of the Metropolitan Police: these all meant that more cases were being reported to coroners, which led to more inquests held, and so there was this sudden jump. But critics didn’t look at what the causes of the increase were—they thought the coroners held more inquests in order to make more money. Making this perception worse was the introduction of the Medical Witness Act in 1836, which for the first time allowed coroners and juries to compel the testimony of doctors and order them to perform postmortems. Coroners, it was charged, were ghouls intent on making a profit using the dead body of your loved one. So, there was a great deal of suspicion. No doubt, there really was some shady business going on—the beadles who served as coroner’s officers were said to be notoriously corrupt, skimming money, and if you go to oldbaileyonline search the name of Thomas Hammond (Roderick Macdonald’s officer), you will see that he went to prison for fraud in 1891. But, still a big part of it was unfounded, fueled by misconception.

    I’ve read in Hansard that part of the reason why so much effort went into coronial elections was because political parties sometimes seized on them as a way to test their strength before more important electons came around. You will certainly find that candidates for the office were connected: The Times claims that Wynne Baxter had over 1,000 names on his petition to run in 1886, with broad support from the Metropolitan Board of Works; Roderick Macdonald had the backing of MP Samuel Montagu in 1888; Thomas Diplock had the support of Lord Ranelagh (and leased a house of his, from which he ran his office as coroner).

    Throughout the years, you will find the House of Commons trying to find a way to do away with the election, but as M.P.’s were reluctant to do away with a right (voting), there wasn’t much they could do except limit the scope of elections (which they did with The Coroners Act 1844, limiting participation and the duration of elections). Not until passage of The Local Government Act 1888, were they done away with altogether. County councils were created, effective in 1889, and were given the power to appoint coroners. Since the councils were elected bodies, the right to vote was preserved. In London, to the best of my knowledge, Roderick Macdonald was the last coroner there to be popularly elected by freeholder (and his election was a source of unfavorable comment in the House of Commons). And that was how something that was on the surface good but in reality bad for the office was eventually done away with.

    So to sum up, thought it feels kind of like sunshine and flowers to say it, the coroner was in effect a guardian of the community (referred to as “the poor man’s magistrate”), someone who presided over the public’s own investigation of sudden death, able to compel assistance in his investigation. He was a friend. Yet at the same time, the public mistrusted him for the reasons I’ve mentioned above, so he was a friend they didn't always know was a friend, or because they didn't always understand why he acted as he did. Like Sirius Black

    I don’t really know how the police viewed the inquest—I wouldn’t be surprised if they saw it as wasting time with laymen when they could have been working. Perhaps it hindered the investigation (I don’t think it did) or there were times they were giving out too much information, but this was their system and there was a saying “Publicity is the soul of justice”. Also, appeals to the jury could be made. Sometimes inquests could be private as well, but there would have to be an awfully good reason for it.

    There’s more, but I’ll stop there. I know these posts are awfully long and probably tiring to read, but just read a little at a time.

    Cheers,
    Dave

  • #2
    Dave,

    Great work.

    I think it's relevant to add that the coroner's jury could, until relatively recently, settle on the identity of the murderer, in the case of a murder. This would then inform the death certificate. In the cases of the Ripper victims, the absence of any firm evidence attaching to any individual killer means that they all had "Wilful murder against some person or person unknown" (or similar variants) recorded on their certificates under "Cause of death", along with the fatal injuries they had sustained.

    In other cases, the evidence pointed to an individual against whom a prima facie case could be made. The Camden Town Murder of 1907 was attributed by the coroner's jury to Robert Wood; but the jury at the Old Bailey later disagreed, finding him not guilty of the criminal charge of murder. Still, the death certificate had been issued, and, until recently, it still said "Wilful murder against Robert Williams Thomas George Cavers Wood". Then Wood's descendants applied to have the certificate amended to reflect his acquittal of the criminal charge. The certificate now adds "Tried and acquitted" (a detail which has nothing to do with the findings of the coroner's jury). Whether there is a precedent for changing a death certificate nearly 100 years after the death (the amendment is dated 2006), I do not know.

    If the jury identified an individual / individuals against whom a prima facie case could be made, the coroner had a duty to commit the individual / individuals named to trial at the next Assizes (or, after these were abolished, the Crown Court).

    I believe that the right of juries to name a murderer was removed in the 1970s, and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that the last man named as a murderer by a coroner's jury was Lord Lucan. Unfortunately he was unavailable to comment, having disappeared into the night in rather a panicky way immediately after the beating to death of his children's nanny - the murder of which the coroner's jury later suspected him.

    Regards,

    Mark
    Last edited by m_w_r; 06-21-2009, 03:33 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Very interesting, Mark. I didn't know that about putting the accused's name on the death certificates--pretty unfair considering he hadn't had a trial yet. They're always working on improving the inquest over there, with some major law coming every generation or so. I think what they'd really like to have is a Fiscal Procurator like they do in Scotland; they're always mentioning that office while they're wondering whether the coroner was more trouble than he was worth.

      I'm sure those bad verdicts were also why they've done away with the jury in most cases! In the 19th century I know the jury represented a check against the coroner's discretion and you will see that coroners deferred to them upon the evidence, within legal bounds that is. Someday I'd like to read up about what happened during the 20th century more, I've done some with the new bill going through, but I'd like to backtrack especially to when they did away with the jury, just to see what the rationale was. I suspect it was just what you've pointed out: bad verdicts, plus maybe some liability issues, and I bet expense was a factor too. I've read of jurymen trying to derail inquests over their fees.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      Comment


      • #4
        Dave,

        Thanks for that loooonnngg, but entirely interesting and useful post. It's a great and easily understood encapsulation of the LVP coroner's responsibilities. Still, it does look as if it was an extremely powerful position, one that could be misused (one supposes) if the wrong man was not installed. I mean, the power of arrest! I wonder how often that happened. There alone I see some conflicts developing between coroners and police officials. Perhaps the power they wielded is what I read in the words they use in the inquest testimonies, an air of haughtiness if you will. This then might just be a by-product of authority and not conscious posturing.

        Thanks again. I'm sure this will generate some interest.

        Cheers,

        Mike
        huh?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dave O View Post
          I'm sure those bad verdicts were also why they've done away with the jury in most cases!
          Hi Dave,

          I have to disagree with you here. There are two different standards of legal evidence involved, one applying to a jury in a coroner's court, and the other applying at the Assizes (or similar). Taking Robert Wood as an example, the coroner's jury simply found a prima facie case against him. Here is the report carried in the Times, 29 October 1907.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	Robert Wood - Inquest Verdict.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	51.1 KB
ID:	657206

          The coroner makes the point, much more effectively than I was going to, that the legal process against Wood could stall at any of the three subsequent stages available to him (at the committal proceedings, at the Grand Jury proceedings, or at the trial), and, indeed, it stalled, in the end, at the third of these. Like the coroner's jury, the magistrates and the Grand Jury were only required to find a prima facie case against the accused.

          But a jury at a criminal trial - particularly a trial for murder, the only available sentence for conviction of which was death - had to be much more careful with their verdict. They were not looking for a prima facie case, but proof of commission beyond reasonable doubt. This requires a much higher standard of evidence, and, in Wood's case, the jury found the evidence insufficient to sustain the indictment. This is all quite natural and humane: I suspect that many people still consider Wood likely to have been, in fact, guilty of the murder, but the standards of proof necessary in a capital trial are, quite properly, exacting.

          I still wonder about the legal precedent of changing the wording on a death certificate in significant retrospect. The coroner's jury operated quite legally and within their remit in identifying the prima facie case against Wood; the coroner was obliged to record their verdict on the death certificate. The subsequent verdict of the jury at the criminal trial has nothing to do with what the coroner's jury's verdict, and to confuse the two (as the death certificate now does) is inelegant, to say the least. Although I can understand the passion of Wood's descendants, who prompted the amendment, the idea that the verdicts of perfectly legal inquests can now be modified on private application is a worrying one.

          Regards,

          Mark

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Mark,

            That is great work. Right, usual laws of evidence don't apply to the inquest; its business is to determine the facts, and in the 19th century, if the facts point towards you, the coroner isn't there to protect your interests. And because it's about the facts, the coroner can't be guilty of libel. But you as an accused person has the ability to defend yourself down the road, just like you show. Now, you cite a case where the coroner and jury agree on a verdict; I'm thinking also about cases where they didn't, where the jury chose to ignore the coroner's advice on the law altogether, and really there was nothing the coroner could do about it after having explained it to them. I wonder how often courts were clogged with such cases, where there maybe was a view that went like "this case doesn't belong here--obviously the inquest jury doesn't understand the law."

            So although a person may be excused by a later criminal trial, still he's tainted by the inquest verdict, which though conducted properly and legally, has no legal standing. Yet if it's a juicy case, it's published everywhere, and you're convincted in the court of public opinion. That's what I would worry about, if I was accused by an inquest (hopefully wrongly), and why I suspect this was a consideration in removing the jury from the inquest or taking away the inquest's ability to make an accusation of murder--but I haven't studied this particular area as I'm stuck in the 19th century

            Hi Mike,

            Thanks, sorry for the length of the post. Yes, the office could certainly be abused by the wrong man--a constant concern throughout the century. The police and coroner did sometimes conflict, I know of one spectacular example from about mid-century, but more often I think they worked together pretty well. The really big fights came between coroners and magistrates, who oversaw their expenditures and were always anxious to save a shilling and as a body seem to have been convinced that coroners were ripping the ratepayers off, and so they tried to financially inhibit them by refusing to pay them their fees and expenses when they thought an inquest was unnecessary.

            Cheers,
            Dave
            Last edited by Dave O; 06-22-2009, 01:57 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by m_w_r View Post
              The coroner makes the point, much more effectively than I was going to, that the legal process against Wood could stall at any of the three subsequent stages available to him (at the committal proceedings, at the Grand Jury proceedings, or at the trial), and, indeed, it stalled, in the end, at the third of these.
              Mind you, I couldn't help noticing that the coroner said that Wood would have the opportunity of proving that he was not the person who did the murder, which doesn't seem entirely the correct way of looking at it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Election of Wynne Baxter

                Here are a couple of brief articles related to the election of Wynne Baxter in 1886. At this time, East Middlesex was one whole district, though the magistrates had already notified the contestants that they intended to divide it (which actually didn’t take place until 1888 with the creation of North East and South East districts).

                ELECTION OF A CORONER.
                Yesterday afternoon at the Vestry Hall, Bethnal-green, the election of a coroner forrr the Eastern Division of Middlesex, in the place of the late Sir John Humphreys, took place. Mr. George Collier on Tuesday last decided to retire from the contest in favour of Mr. Wynne Baxter, Deputy Coroner for the City of London, and requested his supporters to vote for that gentleman. A great amount of interest was manifested in the election, and the Vestry Hall was crowded by freeholders, who have the right of electing the coroner. Mr. Sheriff Isaacs presided. There were originally eight candidates for the office, but only five were nominated yesterday—namely, Dr. Macdonald, M.P., who has been for many years in practice in the East-end; Mr. Thomas Beard, C.C., senior solicitor of the Mansion-house Justice Rooms; Mr. Wynne Baxter, Deputy Coroner for the City of London; Mr. George Hay Young, solicitor, and Dr. Porter, practising in the neighbourhood. The proceedings were of a very disorderly character, owing to a mob of roughs having by some means gained admission to the hall. Several fights took place among them, and they hissed and hooted indiscriminately. Mr. Isaacs asked for a show of hands, which resulted in favour of Mr. George Hay Young, who was declared duly elected. The disorder was so great, however, that the exact number of votes in his favour could not be ascertained. Mr. Baxter was second with about 50 votes the other candidates receiving little support. Mr. Young having thanked the meeting for electing him and having promised to fulfil the duties of the office to the best of his abilities a vote of thanks was accorded to Mr. Sheriff Isaacs and the proceedings terminated. If a poll is demanded it will be held on Monday.
                (The Times 11 December 1886).

                For the losers, the bedlam that prevented a count was, let's say, fortunate, and a poll was indeed demanded.

                THE ELECTION OF CORONER.—The poll for the election of coroner for the Eastern Division of the county of Middlesex, in the place of the late Sir John Humphreys, was held yesterday. Of the 11 candidates originally in the field only five decided on going to the pool. Those five gentlemen were Mr. George Hay Young, who obtained the post according to the show of hands at the nomination on Friday last; Mr. Wynne Baxter, the present Deputy Coroner for the City; Mr. Thomas Beard, the well-known solicitor; Dr. M’Donald M.P.; and Dr. Porter. From an early hour large numbers of brakes, cabs, and carriages, of all descriptions were used for the purpose of bringing up the electors. At the polling booths, which were presided over by the two under-sheriffs, there were strong forces of polling clerks, who, from the opening at 8 o’clock until 4 o’clock, when the contest ceased, were busily engaged by the large number of freeholders who steamed to record their votes. As the day wore on a large crowd of roughs assembled outside the Bethnal-green Vestry-hall, in which the election for the district took place, and the police had great difficulty in keeping order. The committee rooms of the candidates were also frequently assailed by the roughs, who kept demanding black-mail for supposed services by the above or their friends, and at the close of the voting several free fights took place. Late at night the result of the voting was stated to be as follows:--Baxter, 1,401; M’Donald, 1,069; Young, 696. Messrs. Beard and Porter also received a few voters each. The official declaration of the poll will be made to-day. (The Times, 14 December 1886).

                The beneficiaries of the disorder and what must have been a big drive to turn out the vote were Baxter and Macdonald, both achieving what must have been pretty dramatic turnarounds after only a couple of days. George Hay Young must have been really, really pissed. Later there would be a case of assault involving a supporter of Thomas Beard against one of Wynne Baxter’s supporters (with Baxter’s man offering to allow Beard’s man to punch him in the face as his way of making it right). A name was given to the roughs—Baxter’s Lambs (probably Macdonald had a few lambs of his own).

                So, a lot of shenanigans, I am sure some wheeling and dealing (Collier became Baxter's deputy), common with the elections that I’ve read of, and only one good illustration of why appointment by elected council is likely a better way to select a coroner than the old freeholder elections, though they were very colorful and entertaining. The appointment of franchise coroners could be even worse—there is an address in Hansard that describes selection in one ancient franchise by right of possession of a hereditary horn (dating back to medieval times, I’m sure)!

                Cheers,
                Dave

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Chris View Post
                  Mind you, I couldn't help noticing that the coroner said that Wood would have the opportunity of proving that he was not the person who did the murder, which doesn't seem entirely the correct way of looking at it.
                  Chris, I agree with you on this point.

                  Returning to the idea that the verdicts of coroners' juries, as recorded on death certificates, could be amended to reflect the verdict of a criminal trial... I was interested to note that Julia Wallace's death certificate, reproduced in The Murder of Julia Wallace by James Murphy, reads:

                  Fracture of the skull caused with an unknown instrument; that the court of Criminal appeal allowed the appeal of William Herbert Wallace against his conviction for the murder of Julia Wallace and quashed and set aside the conviction.

                  Perhaps such amendments were more common than I had thought.

                  Regards,

                  Mark

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi Mark and Chris,

                    If you’re interested, here are a couple of 19th century examples of juries not quite understanding the law. These are cases that John, Robert, and I wrote about for Ripperologist. The first is from a lengthy case held by Samuel Langham in September 1853, which we wrote about more extensively in Ripperologist 66 as they touch upon several features of interest (including a great example of the Medical Witness Act 1836 in action). Anyway, it concerned the collapse of an ancient building in the Strand, some three hundred years old. It was part of a series of interconnected buildings that shared a party wall, most of which had been demolished in preparation for new buildings, but because the buildings were all still tenanted, they were torn down only as the leases expired. So there was this one remaining place—still tenanted—and it hadn’t been shored up properly although the party wall had been undermined. As the demolishing and rebuilding went on, the remaining building had an alarming habit of swaying like a ship at sea, if I recall correctly. You can imagine how this worried the tenants. Finally one day it collapsed straight down upon itself, sort of like a mini version of the Twin Towers. The man overseeing the construction, named Rowe, died in the collapse along with three others. One of the questions the jury had to answer was how culpable the surveyor in charge, named Abraham, was in the disaster (Abraham was not present at the time of the time and had left Rowe in charge).

                    Langham's summation from the Times:

                    It was their duty, however, carefully to weigh the evidence, and to say whether any criminality attached to any of the parties engaged in the work in progress. He hoped, as this inquiry had created a great amount of public attention, and had occupied a great deal of their time, that its effect would be to show that persons could not engage in responsible undertakings of this description without taking care that the utmost attention was paid to the safety and security of every part of the work. First, it would be their duty to ascertain the cause of the calamity, and then it would be for them to determine whether any criminal responsibility rested with any person... the whole responsibility of the works appeared to be thrown upon the builders, but it would be stating the question too broadly to say that every builder was personally to inspect every work in which he was engaged. It was the duty, therefore, of the builders to appoint some perfectly competent and well-trained person to represent them, and it would be for the jury to say whether Mr Rowe was such a person... With respect to Mr Abraham, they had heard that gentleman’s evidence, and they had also heard the evidence of Mr Stevens who stated his belief that the works as described by Mr Abraham to have been left by him on the day before the accident were perfectly safe (the 18-inch holes which had undermined the party wall had been dug in Abraham’s absence). It was for the jury, upon the evidence before them, to say whether in this case there had been gross criminal negligence. It was not sufficient that there should have been an error of judgment, but that there must have been actual culpable negligence proved in order to justify a verdict of ‘Manslaughter.’

                    The verdict:

                    We unanimously find that Robert Thompson, Sarah Thompson, George Dunne, and George Rowe came to their respective deaths by the failing of the house No. 184, Strand, and that the falling of such house is to be attributed to the gross negligence of Mr Abraham, the surveyor employed by the Duke of Norfolk and the Messrs. Smith, in not causing the party-wall to be sufficiently shored up and underpinned before the excavations for the new building were commenced. Before we separate we are anxious to express our approbation of the conduct of the Messrs. Smith in volunteering to bear the expenses of employing the three independent surveyors to ascertain the cause of the accident.

                    Langham probed the verdict—I think what he’s getting at here was whether the jury had understood his summation and did they really mean to say that Abraham was criminally negligent? But Langham had to be careful not to impose a verdict upon them:

                    The Coroner. - Your verdict, then, gentleman, amounts to a verdict of ‘Manslaughter’ against Mr Abraham - that I understand to be the verdict of you all?
                    Mr Berger (a juror). - We did not contemplate that. We consider that it was ‘gross negligence,’ arising from an error in judgment.
                    The Foreman. - We did not intend our verdict to amount to ‘Manslaughter’ against Mr Abraham. Can we not alter the words ‘gross negligence’ into ‘want of due care?’
                    The Coroner. - I understand that you do not mean to convey that there was criminal negligence, but that there was a want of care.
                    The Foreman. - Just so; that there was something more than an error of judgment.
                    Mr Carr (another juror). - We cannot think Mr Abraham was deficient in judgment.
                    The Coroner suggested that the verdict might be altered by simply leaving out the words ‘gross negligence.’
                    The Foreman. - We are anxious that our verdict should not amount to ‘Manslaughter.’
                    Mr Berger. - At the same time, we do not wish the verdict altered. We have well considered it, and cannot help what its consequences may be.
                    Mr Gannon (another juror). - There is no difference of opinion among us as to the cause of the accident, though, out of kindness of feeling to Mr Abraham, we did not wish him to undergo the serious consequences that would result from a verdict of ‘Manslaughter.’
                    The jury again consulted together for a few minutes, at the expiration of which time,
                    The Foreman said, - We cannot retract our verdict, whatever the consequences, although we did not intend to bring in a verdict of ‘Manslaughter’ against Mr Abraham.


                    And so in the end, let the chips fall where they may, the verdict stood. A letter from one of the jurors to The Times:

                    Sir, - I was one of the jury summoned to inquire into the cause of the falling of the house No. 184, Strand. Since the verdict has been given I have heard it said in my presence by several persons living in the neighbourhood of the accident, that the jury were the most imbecile and unfit to perform their duty they had ever met with.
                    Allow me to say they were all unanimous that gross negligence was to be attributed to Mr Abraham. The law of the matter, or the consequences of delivering that verdict, was not at all considered, and, I think, very properly so. The wavering of some of the jury on hearing from the coroner the result of their verdict, has, I suppose, given rise to the improper remarks I have heard made.
                    I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
                    ONE WHO DID NOT WAVER.


                    That October, the Central Criminal Court heard the case and found Abraham not guilty. From the bench:

                    [It] was very right in the case of such a dreadful accident that an inquiry should take place, but, perhaps, in the present instance the law of manslaughter had not been quite understood.

                    And this from October 1890, one of Roderick Macdonald’s cases (from Rip 65 citing the Times):

                    During a late night drinking session, forty-two-year-old George Hudson got into an altercation with two young men named Williams and Ward. They knocked Hudson down to the ground twice. The second time, Hudson’s head struck the curb, and he died a short time after. When Williams and Ward were arrested, each swore the other had been responsible for knocking Hudson down. At the inquest, three additional witnesses were unable to shed any light on who had done what. Because, as the High Court had opined of the first Bravo inquest verdict in 1876, it was better to attach no blame than to accuse an innocent person of murder or manslaughter, Macdonald advised that the jury’s verdict should be conservative when placing blame:

                    The coroner told the jury that the best thing they could do was to certify the cause of death and leave it to another tribunal to decide who was responsible for it. The jury were locked up for nearly three hours, and ultimately returned a verdict of ‘Manslaughter’ against both Ward and Williams, a verdict which the Coroner said he did not think would be sustained in another Court.

                    I don’t know whether this case was prosecuted or not, but I suggest that cases like these, and those similar to them, are partially why inquests no longer make these sorts of accusations, and for the decline of the jury in most modern inquests (though not the only reasons). They’re a little different from the case you’ve cited Mark—there the coroner and jury are in agreement, here the jury dispensed with the coroner’s advice and there wasn’t anything the coroner could do about it. Coroners could, however, refuse to allow the attachment of “riders” to the verdict, which assigned a moral blame (for example, the coroner might disallow them if the rider had nothing to do with the verdict). There were some pretty good conflicts between coroners and juries over riders.

                    Cheers,
                    Dave

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X