The Echo, 10th November 1888

[Archaic]

Legal Definitions of 'Adjournement' & 'Adjournment Sine Die'

Hi, Stewart; thanks for responding to my question.

The legal term 'adjournment' has an interestingly open-ended definition because apparently it can be used to indicate either
"a postponement to a later date" OR "the suspension of proceedings". The latter may be temporary or permanent.
Its usage in the Echo article suggests that the first application- that of a temporary suspension- was initially expected with the Kelly inquest.

Here are some legal definitions I found that might be of interest :

ADJOURNMENT: "A putting off or postponing of proceedings; an ending or dismissal of further business by a court, legislature, or public official—either temporarily or permanently.
If an adjournment is final, it is said to be sine die, "without day" or without a time fixed to resume the work. An adjournment is different from a recess, which is only a short break in proceedings."


ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE: "Adjournment sine die is a Latin phrase which means “without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing.”
For example, to adjourn an assembly sine die means to adjourn the assembly for an indefinite period.
In the U.S., adjournment sine die is an adjournment till the next session of the congress.
The court may also adjourn a particular matter sine die. It means that the matter is stayed permanently.
For example, if a case is started with a wrong procedure, the judge can adjourn the matter sine die so that the party can choose the action again with the right procedure."

Caveat: I'm not sure if the term 'adjournment' meant exactly the same thing under 1888 British Law or if there were slightly different usages.

Thanks and best regards, Archaic

[Dave O]

Let's Ask Evans

Stewart wrote: Valid thoughts Dave, although I feel that there were several factors at work here.'

Thanks for that, and for providing your own thoughts. I think you're in a particularly good situation to give an opinion as I understand that you have experience both with police work and inquests as a coroner's officer. This isn't to say that I always agree with you, but I do recognize that you have great experience while I am a layman. I surely do respect you and value what you write. If you have time:

I wonder what you make of Macdonald apparently not informing Phillips to attend that inquest? Besides his saying so, is this another indication that Macdonald intends to adjourn? Is it fair to say that as a postmortem has been ordered, the cause of death determined, and since one of the the tasks that inquest is charged with is to determine the cause of death, which they have evidence of, if Phillips doesn't come, then it's likely they're going to require a second session, never mind the problem with the jury. I don't know whether you have an opinion or not, but if you do, I would like to know it.

You also bring up a very important point, which I agree with. I hope you don't mind the emphasis: It would appear that, at the inquest, Macdonald obtained police agreement to abruptly close the inquest that same day.

Just to hit on this, because I think it's important, am I right to say: this would have been a consultation between coroner and interested party (the police), with the interested party having input, after which closing the inquest is put to a jury. The coroner advises the jury to close, and this carries great weight--but ultimately, the procedure is that it's the jury that closes the inquest and they have an opportunity to dispense with the coroner's advice (not that they seem to have wanted to). Do you think that it's right to say this?

I think you're being clear that this agreement to close occurred during the inquest, and not before. The reason I bring it up is that there seems to be a general sentiment that limiting the inquest to a single day was agreed upon in advance. I think this is understandable, because as you say, a flawed inquest does create a bad impression (though it's legal, it's certainly flawed, and it's cost us precious information). It breeds conspiracy theories. Though I understand that perception, my personal opinion is that this is a myth, perception and knowledge are two different things.

You seem open to taking the jury issue into account, and there is also the impact of what happens when a high profile murder case arrives in a coroner's district that's poorly devised (I don't know what you think about that). But for those who may reject these issues out of hand, is it fair to say that initially the Kelly inquest appears headed for adjournment and then something happens during open proceedings that changes its course?

Like I say, if you don't have time for this, no worries.

Cheers,
Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

This is from The Daily Telegraph, Nov 13, 1888

The Coroner (to the jury): The question is whether you will adjourn for further evidence. My own opinion is that it is very unnecessary for two courts to deal with these cases, and go through the same evidence time after time, which only causes expense and trouble. If the coroner's jury can come to a decision as to the cause of death, then that is all that they have to do. They have nothing to do with prosecuting a man and saying what amount of penalty he is to get. It is quite sufficient if they find out what the cause of death was. It is for the police authorities to deal with the case and satisfy themselves as to any person who may be suspected later on. I do not want to take it out of your hands. It is for you to say whether at an adjournment you will hear minutiae of the evidence, or whether you will think it is a matter to be dealt with in the police-courts later on, and that, this woman having met with her death by the carotid artery having been cut, you will be satisfied to return a verdict to that effect. From what I learn the police are content to take the future conduct of the case. It is for you to say whether you will close the inquiry to-day; if not, we shall adjourn for a week or fortnight, to hear the evidence that you may desire.

Good points indeed Dave. I can see what you are getting to. I also think that Phillips' evidence that we did NOT hear, is likely to have been very important, namely telling us more of what his opinions were, that we have never seen nor heard.

best wishes

Phil

best wishes

[Dave O]

Hi Phil,

Well yes, it seems to me that the jury has discretion there. But the thing about that bit you've quoted that really strikes me as odd is that Dr. Macdonald would describe detailed medical evidence of a murder as "minutae". It just seems like such a dramatic turnaround from someone who earlier has suggested that there's going to be adjournment for what? More medical evidence. So something seems to have happened during the inquest, not before.

Stewart is quite right to use the word "abrupt" to describe how that inquest ended. And when an inquest does something strange like that, well of course, people raise their eyebrows. And there are some very legitimate criticisms of the Kelly inquest that Stewart raises, some of them contemporary--it should have adjourned for further medical evidence and preserved it. But why didn't it, and I ask--was there a danger that maybe it couldn't, related to procedure and a flawed district? Although the jurisdiction is clear if you study it (it's not clear to a couple of jurors), the composition of the coroner's district is just messed up. In any case, there's a real loss of information, and there are some strong opinions about why it didn't adjourn.

Cheers,
Dave

[Dave O]

Money

Macdonald and Wynne Baxter were the two coroners for East Middlesex and there are indications that this led to some rivalry. I believe that Baxter was claiming the considerable sum of £1,000 a year, for a five year period, by reason of the division of East Middlesex between the two of them. So the remarks of jurors regarding jurisdiction were guaranteed to annoy Macdonald.

Oh yes, I'll bet Macdonald was furious with the jurors. I'd loved to see him just after that inquest ended--I imagine him stomping off and muttering "What the hell?"

It sounds like you're already familiar with this. I don't want to take up too much space here, but for those who don't know about this, this is interesting background:

Both coroners are getting about £1,100 a year--the predecessor in the district, Sir John Humphreys, was getting about £2,200 when it was just one big district, and that's what Baxter was getting too when he was first elected in December 1886 until Macdonald comes in, which I think must have been July 1888 (he's elected in June). The salary's not based on the quality of the work a coroner does, it's about the quantity--population factors in, number of inquests, mileage, etc. And the reason why the pay them by salary is because when coroners were paid a fee per inquest, the magistrates were inhibiting them because they thought they were holding too many unnecessary inquests and not paying them for the ones they objected to. And the fear is that an inhibited coroner might not investigate cases where the cause of death isn't obvious, like poisonings. So salary is a kind of compromise: coroners got their fees for five years, and then then the magistrates had an opportunity to review it and alter it (sometimes they just didn't review it, they didn't have to).

When they divide the district, they divided the salary right down the middle and the issue is whether the magistrates can divide the salary before Baxter's five years were up. And, all the candidates in that 1886 election are notified that the division is going to happen. By law, the magistrates have to meet with the affected coroners (George Danford's Central Middlesex district is also affected). So after he's elected, Baxter and Danford Thomas head over to see the magistrates, they set his salary at £2,200, and then the coroners ask about the salary and the five years--the magistrates basically tell them to jump in the lake. So Baxter wants that £2,200 to continue on through his fifth anniversary (though he's no longer doing the same work). He fights, uses the appeals that are built into the law (it's an Act of 1860), and when they fall through, he brings a suit against the magistrates. But it's not heard until after the LCC comes in, so he substitutes them for the magistrates. Off they go before the Queen's Bench, but although the justice there agrees that the 1860 Act says "right, you're not supposed to review the salary before the five years are up", Baxter loses the suit--the justice says it's "ill-conceived" (for reasons I don't entirely comprehend, but there is a reason).

I think Macdonald doesn't stand to lose one way or the other whatever happens, his salary is all set through 1893 (when the LCC gives him a raise, population must have increased and he must be holding more inquests). As I see it, the issue for local government is whether it's going to have to pay £3,300 for these two coroners through five years (this is just my feeling, I might have this wrong)--even though Baxter's not doing the work. This could all have been averted if the magistrates had just divided the district before Baxter's election, but they don't. It takes an unusually long time for that division to happen, it's announced that they're going to do it in November 1886 but the Order in Council doesn't come out until May 1888. Seems like an unusually drawn out thing--other divisions don't seem to take that long, I don't know why this one did.

Stewart, I shouldn't be, because you're a living encyclopedia, but I'm impressed that you're familiar with this, I thought this was obscure--I hope you don't take that the wrong way. All through the autumn of 1888, Baxter must have had this suit in the works as he initially names the magistrates. I don't mean to go on, but it really is an interesting bit of background. When it ends up in the Queen's Bench, Richard Assheton Cross is there with Baxter (the name's given as R. Assheton Cross, I assume this is the former Home Secretary).

Cheers,
Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Yes, this is indeed fascinating. There are many aspects in this to be considered. Phillips' evidence for one, the abruptness another, McDonald's attitude, yet another.
I tell you what though, I would like to hear from yourself, and others like you who know more about the procedure at inquests, whether it is normal to any degree to close an inquest without a declaration from a doctor the probable or definitive estimate regarding the victim's time of death? Also whether a lone person was responsible or there were suspicions of more than one person involved? I thought that, perhaps mistakenly, it was normal to give such opinions?

best wishes

Phil

[Dave O]

Hi Phil,

I think Stewart will have a better perspective, but postmortems weren't always done, there's a discretion about whether or not the coroner orders one. And the jury has a discretion, too. But Local government can't sustain the financial burden to have them done all the time, so they have to be selective, I think. There's been a study done about how often Victorian coroners are ordering inquests, but this is difficult to ascertain when so many records have been lost. I don't recall the percentages offhand, but over the 19th century, it's rising, but nowhere close to 100%.

But when it's murder, I think you definitely do one, you certainly should. Cause of death, time of death--these are things that legislation and practice call for if it can be determined, and you don't only have to determine the cause of death, but the how and why of it happening. So, you want science as well as witness testimony.

And another thing they're tasked with is to determine, if they can, who's responsible for the murder. In our field of interest, they can't, it's an unknown person. This isn't not the case anymore--inquests don't attach blame, but then it was. They're trying to determine the facts for a possible criminal trial down the road--and this is a solid criticism of the Kelly inquest, the medical evidence needs to be preserved because someone might be brought to trial. I don't know whether they have to say how many were responsible, I think it just comes out of the evidence, and it's a case by case thing.

But right, closing the inquest without determining the cause of death would be something to avoid, and in a murder case particularly, you're going to want something from a qualified medical witness. To close the Kelly inquest without a medical cause of death, I don't think they can do it--not if it's been determined.

I'm not sure I answered your question. think Stewart will know better than me.

Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

Sine Die

Hi, Stewart; thanks for responding to my question.
The legal term 'adjournment' has an interestingly open-ended definition because apparently it can be used to indicate either
"a postponement to a later date" OR "the suspension of proceedings". The latter may be temporary or permanent.
Its usage in the Echo article suggests that the first application- that of a temporary suspension- was initially expected with the Kelly inquest.
Here are some legal definitions I found that might be of interest :
ADJOURNMENT: "A putting off or postponing of proceedings; an ending or dismissal of further business by a court, legislature, or public official—either temporarily or permanently.
If an adjournment is final, it is said to be sine die, "without day" or without a time fixed to resume the work. An adjournment is different from a recess, which is only a short break in proceedings."
ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE: "Adjournment sine die is a Latin phrase which means “without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing.”
For example, to adjourn an assembly sine die means to adjourn the assembly for an indefinite period.
In the U.S., adjournment sine die is an adjournment till the next session of the congress.
The court may also adjourn a particular matter sine die. It means that the matter is stayed permanently.
For example, if a case is started with a wrong procedure, the judge can adjourn the matter sine die so that the party can choose the action again with the right procedure."
Caveat: I'm not sure if the term 'adjournment' meant exactly the same thing under 1888 British Law or if there were slightly different usages.
Thanks and best regards, Archaic

Rest assured that the word 'adjournment' in this case means nothing more than its normal meaning which is postponing or suspending for later resumption. Most inquests were initially opened and then the coroner would adjourn them to a stated day, which you will see was the case in the other inquests on the Whitechapel murders.

The Latin term sine die, until an unspecified date, was, and is still, used in courts when they cannot be specific (for whatever reason) as to an exact date for reconvening. The term used is 'case adjourned sine die' (at a date to be arranged and notified). It is common and I have been involved in many cases that have been adjourned in this way. It would be very rare for the case to not be resumed, but it could happen (say if a defendant absconded and could not be located).

[Stewart P Evans]

Long Posts

Stewart wrote: Valid thoughts Dave, although I feel that there were several factors at work here.'
Thanks for that, and for providing your own thoughts. I think you're in a particularly good situation to give an opinion as I understand that you have experience both with police work and inquests as a coroner's officer. This isn't to say that I always agree with you, but I do recognize that you have great experience while I am a layman. I surely do respect you and value what you write. If you have time:
I wonder what you make of Macdonald apparently not informing Phillips to attend that inquest? Besides his saying so, is this another indication that Macdonald intends to adjourn? Is it fair to say that as a postmortem has been ordered, the cause of death determined, and since one of the the tasks that inquest is charged with is to determine the cause of death, which they have evidence of, if Phillips doesn't come, then it's likely they're going to require a second session, never mind the problem with the jury. I don't know whether you have an opinion or not, but if you do, I would like to know it.
...

As always Dave a detailed and meticulous post. I have stated in the past that long posts tend to lose readers about halfway through, and if they are complex and of a procedural nature they may become bored and lose interest. I shall break your post down in order to answer points.

Whilst I have dealt with literally dozens of sudden deaths (including accident, natural causes, suicide and murder) and have acted as coroner's officer on many occasions this was in the period 1969-1992 and I operated under the then current legislation and rules. Much was the same back in Victorian times although there would have been minor differences.

We do not possess sufficient information to ascertain the exact reasons and circumstances of this extraordinarily short inquest. There is no way that in the case of a murder such as this that it should be opened and closed the same day. It seems, though, in 1888 expense was an all important factor and doctors charged fees for their appearance(s).

To digress, may I ask you a question, where do we disagree?

[Stewart P Evans]

Investigation

...
You also bring up a very important point, which I agree with. I hope you don't mind the emphasis: It would appear that, at the inquest, Macdonald obtained police agreement to abruptly close the inquest that same day.
Just to hit on this, because I think it's important, am I right to say: this would have been a consultation between coroner and interested party (the police), with the interested party having input, after which closing the inquest is put to a jury. The coroner advises the jury to close, and this carries great weight--but ultimately, the procedure is that it's the jury that closes the inquest and they have an opportunity to dispense with the coroner's advice (not that they seem to have wanted to). Do you think that it's right to say this?
I think you're being clear that this agreement to close occurred during the inquest, and not before. The reason I bring it up is that there seems to be a general sentiment that limiting the inquest to a single day was agreed upon in advance. I think this is understandable, because as you say, a flawed inquest does create a bad impression (though it's legal, it's certainly flawed, and it's cost us precious information). It breeds conspiracy theories. Though I understand that perception, my personal opinion is that this is a myth, perception and knowledge are two different things.
...

I think that we need to make it clear that the investigation into a death that was apparently murder was carried out by the police and not the coroner.

The inquiry held by the coroner was a preliminary hearing that served to establish various things such as time and date of death, cause of death, identify deceased, identify any possible offenders if a suspicious death, identify relevant witnesses and then to issue a death certificate so that disposal of the body could take place. In these inquiries the police act as agents of the coroner, the coroner's officer usually being a police officer, or an appointed civil agent. The police would normally carry out identification and take witness statements. The police surgeon would be called to pronounce death (even when it was obvious) before the body could be moved. The coroner would also be informed and he would order an autopsy.

There was some dispute in the case of Chapman where we saw that the police surgeon, Dr Phillips, was reluctant to give all the details of his examination. The coroner, Wynne Baxter, excused him at first but at a later hearing required Phillips to give all the details. Phillips, and by implication the police, was reluctant to do this. We have also read of the officer in charge of the case, Abberline, being reluctant to see too much information appear in the public domain.

All this said it must be obvious that the coroner would have discussed the case at length with the police prior to the inquest. I am sure that the coroner would be aware that there was a reluctance on the part of the police to reveal too much detail to the public. There is no way that we shall ever know the ramifications of all this. Whether the police told Macdonald that they hoped for a short and unrevealing inquest and whether or not he agreed.

There can be no doubt that Macdonald adopted the course that the police wished for. However, the abbreviated inquest caused comment and criticism of the action taken; and was most unusual. That alone was enough to give rise to public suspicion. The coroner was a very powerful figure and it would be unusual for a jury to go against his directions. But there had been some very odd decisions and conclusions arrived at during inquests over the years up to then and it was obvious the system needed an overhaul. The Coroners' Act 1887 was a consolidation Act designed to draw together the fragmented case law, rules, common law and legislation that had emerged, over the years, affecting inquests. In 1888 it was in its very early days and amendments were already suggested and tabled.

[Dave O]

It's not that I'm disagreeing with you. Right, they shouldn't have Kelly's inquest in a single day. I guess what I'd like to know is whether you think they meant to (if you do, I'd disagree with that, but I still would like to know what you think, but I don't want to debate. I'm too tired).

What I'd most like to ask about is Phillips. I've always thought that it looks like the coroner meant for him to come at a second session--he apparently hasn't summoned him. I've felt pretty confidant about that, but recently I've encountered what I think may be an example of Macdonald ordering a postmortem but not having the doctor who performed it testify (another one may have). And I don't understand that--if you're ordered to do a postmortem, shouldn't it be a given that you testify, even though it's going to cost an extra guinea? Anyway, I thought of Mary Kelly, and wondered what you thought about the way Phillips comes to that inquest, his having to send that note along. Indicates adjournment to you, or is Macdonald just not planning on having him there at all? If the latter is the case, can they close the inquest without him? I don't think so--but I would like to know what you think.

I do write very long posts--this is a failing of mine. I try to be meticulous, because I'm struggling to get it right. I like procedure--you can't get in anyone's head, but procedure can clear up things sometimes. I don't need to tell you that, because I learned that from following your posts and reading some of your books. Anyway, I'm sure my posts are boring. That doesn't hurt my feelings. If you care to respond, I hope you will--but if it's a chore, or you're busy, I don't want to put you out.

Gotta go to work.

Cheers,
Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

Inquests

...
I think Stewart will have a better perspective, but postmortems weren't always done, there's a discretion about whether or not the coroner orders one. And the jury has a discretion, too. But Local government can't sustain the financial burden to have them done all the time, so they have to be selective, I think. There's been a study done about how often Victorian coroners are ordering inquests, but this is difficult to ascertain when so many records have been lost. I don't recall the percentages offhand, but over the 19th century, it's rising, but nowhere close to 100%.
But when it's murder, I think you definitely do one, you certainly should. Cause of death, time of death--these are things that legislation and practice call for if it can be determined, and you don't only have to determine the cause of death, but the how and why of it happening. So, you want science as well as witness testimony.
And another thing they're tasked with is to determine, if they can, who's responsible for the murder. In our field of interest, they can't, it's an unknown person. This isn't not the case anymore--inquests don't attach blame, but then it was. They're trying to determine the facts for a possible criminal trial down the road--and this is a solid criticism of the Kelly inquest, the medical evidence needs to be preserved because someone might be brought to trial. I don't know whether they have to say how many were responsible, I think it just comes out of the evidence, and it's a case by case thing.
But right, closing the inquest without determining the cause of death would be something to avoid, and in a murder case particularly, you're going to want something from a qualified medical witness. To close the Kelly inquest without a medical cause of death, I don't think they can do it--not if it's been determined.
I'm not sure I answered your question. think Stewart will know better than me.
Dave

Dave, I am sure that you have studied Victorian coroners and inquest legislation to a greater degree than I have - it has never been a specialist subject of mine.

When looking at these old Victorian cases I tend to do so with my own experience as a guide. But, as I have noted, there would have been some differences. The police were required to deal with all sudden deaths - and that included deaths from natural causes (where the cause was not obvious and a doctor had not seen the deceased within two weeks prior to death so would not issue a certificate), all deaths from accident, suicide and foul play.

In all these cases the coroner would be informed and an autopsy would be ordered. This, of course, would have nothing to do with a jury. Given the powers extended to coroners I am sure that should any evidence need to be kept out of the public domain they could order that. A doctor would normally give evidence as to time and location of death, the injuries sustained and, obviously, the cause of death.

[Dave O]

Ok, our posts crossed. Thanks so very much for taking the time to post that. I like to know what you think and am particularly glad to have your impressions of the Coroner's Act, which I think are right. I have studied it a lot, but as I say, I'm a layperson. I try to be careful but constantly ask myself if I'm getting it right. I have some doubt about the police and coroner agreeing to a short inquest, though I'm sure you're right that the police wanted one--the coroner's got a lot of influence, but can he really account for what a jury might want to do in advance?

Macdonald's apparently not calling Phillips just seems weird to me.

I don't know you Stewart, but I like your posts. They're sensible. Mine are plodding, and I'm sorry for that.

Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

Informative

It's not that I'm disagreeing with you. Right, they shouldn't have Kelly's inquest in a single day. I guess what I'd like to know is whether you think they meant to (if you do, I'd disagree with that, but I still would like to know what you think, but I don't want to debate. I'm too tired).
What I'd most like to ask about is Phillips. I've always thought that it looks like the coroner meant for him to come at a second session--he apparently hasn't summoned him. I've felt pretty confidant about that, but recently I've encountered what I think may be an example of Macdonald ordering a postmortem but not having the doctor who performed it testify (another one may have). And I don't understand that--if you're ordered to do a postmortem, shouldn't it be a given that you testify, even though it's going to cost an extra guinea? Anyway, I thought of Mary Kelly, and wondered what you thought about the way Phillips comes to that inquest, his having to send that note along. Indicates adjournment to you, or is Macdonald just not planning on having him there at all? If the latter is the case, can they close the inquest without him? I don't think so--but I would like to know what you think.
I do write very long posts--this is a failing of mine. I try to be meticulous, because I'm struggling to get it right. I like procedure--you can't get in anyone's head, but procedure can clear up things sometimes. I don't need to tell you that, because I learned that from following your posts and reading some of your books. Anyway, I'm sure my posts are boring. That doesn't hurt my feelings. If you care to respond, I hope you will--but if it's a chore, or you're busy, I don't want to put you out.
Gotta go to work.
Cheers,
Dave

Dave, no I don't think that your posts are at all boring, to the contrary they are very informative. All I suggested was that when posts on legal procedures get rather lengthy there is a certain element that loses interest.

I think that I have indicated that we cannot be sure of what Macdonald intended at the commencement of the inquest although it does look as if it was going to be more than the one session. Of course, that still doesn't mean that he wouldn't agree with a police hope that too much information would not be revealed, maybe ending it at a second session. From that point of view I think he may have been more amenable to the police viewpoint than Wynne Baxter.

As far as Dr. Phillips is concerned, he was the police surgeon, he attended the scene, he was the main doctor conducting the autopsy and there would have been no way that he would have been left out of the inquest. If Macdonald intended to adjourn then he possibly intended to call Phillips on the second day.

I think that in general we agree Dave, and I do like to see your well researched posts, you have added a lot to our knowledge of Victorian coroners' proceedings.

[Natalie Severn]

Stewart,
What I was getting at on Sunday when I had to leave off through being late for an engagement,was the ancient principle of a "jury" ,enshrined in British law, meaning the right to be tried by your peers. Therefore,since the coroner"s court had a jury too, wasn"t it the case that the jury were the ones with the power to decide, not the coroner or police ? And that therefore they had the right to decide on the case being adjourned?
As you know so much about the way things are run in these matters, I wondered if you might be able to clarify the role,specifically, of an English Jury at a Coroner"s Court?
Many Thanks,
Norma