A “Crowner’s Quest.”

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 599, 25 April 1891, Page 3

A “Crowner’s Quest.”

ANOTHER FARCICAL INQUIRY IN AUCKLAND. Our Auckland telegrams the other day announced the death of Mr Moses Chambers (father-in-law of Mr Barnard, formerly in the Gisborne post office). The following extract from the N. Z. Herald will be interesting, though not edifying : — There have been many curious coroner’s inquests in the course of British history, and we know that “crowner’s quest law" was a joke in Shakespere’s time. The inquiry held on Saturday at the Junction Hotel into the cause of the death of Moses Chambers is the last of the series, and in point of absurdity is not unworthy to take a good place. Here was a man who had been at his work on the railway on the very day before bis death, who had consulted a doctor for a cold, and who died suddenly after taking a few drops of bryonia, as if he had swallowed prussic acid. There was certainly an absolute necessity for an inquest, and accordingly one was held. It was clear also that a post-mortem was necessary, and in such a case the medical man to have made the post mortem should have been nominated by the coroner, and we should think should not have been the gentleman who had seen deceased and prescribed for him. However, Dr Orpen, who had been consulted by the deceased for his cold, made the examination, and according to his evidence of the condition of the organs, the man ought not to have died. Dr Orpen stated that on the very day of Chambers’ death, he had consulted him for a cold, and he then “did not regard him as seriously ill.” Ac cording to the details of the state of the internal organs they were in a more healthy condition than could reasonably have been anticipated io a man of Chambers' age. Dr Orpen stated that the cause of death was " syncope from general debility." One can scarcely understand this in view of the fact that all the organs were healthy, and that the man had been at his usual employment on the very day of bis death. Dr Orpen, however, did not open the stomach, which surely wit a singular omission, as that is usually the most important organ in a case of sudden death, especially where the brain, lungs, and heart are in good condition. Dr Mac kellar was present at the it quest, but he does not seem to have suggested that the stomach ebould be opened. Possibly, be was prevented from doing so by that “ medical etiquette ” about which we have heard so much. At all events, Dr Mackellar might as well have been absent. The'post-mortem gave him no information as to the cause of death, and therefore he could not enlighten the jury. Bis statement is : “ As far as ths post-mortem went, there was no clear proof of the cause of death.” Mark the oautioua words “as far as the post-mortem wentbut why did it not go further? Dr Mackellar says nothing about “ syncope from general debility," and does not seem to have been asked a question on the subject. The jury were not satisfied. After hearing all the persons who had been with deceased, the evidence of the medical man who had seen him professionally a few hours before his dsath, and the testimony of two medical men as to the post-mortem appearances. the jury solemnly return a verdict that they had received “ no evidence to show the cause of death.” The jury go further, and say that “ they were not satisfied with the post-mortem as performed Dr Orpen, inasmuch as the stomach was not opened. ” We should have thought that it was the duty of the coroner not to have accepted such a verdict, plainly specifying an omission which might have been rectified. But perhaps “ medical etiquette ” came in here also.

We have no idea what is to be done. The object of a coroner's inquest is to decide as to the cause of death. In this case the jury said they had no evidence as to the cause of death; and yet, we believe, the body has been buried.' A coroner’s certificate has tc be given for the burial, and we presume that has been given with the verdict of the jury—that ‘ there was no evidence to show the cause of death."

All reports of coroners’ inquests have to be sent to the Colonial Secretary. What will the Minister say when he gets a report showing that a man in apparent fair health, whom a doctor regarded as not seriously ill, died suddenly, that the jury said “there Was no evidence to show thecause of death,” and that thereupon the body was buried without further inquiry. If the Minister passed such a thing without remark, then he would simply have completed the circle. But we do not tbink he will do so. In the meantime, we should expect the jury to take some steps, Where a coroner’s jury declare that they have not found thecause of death, the police invariably take up the ease so as to see if there has been a crime committed. Bnt in this case, we understand, they do not intend to do anything, regarding the coroner and the jury as being responsible. As for Dr Orpen jt now appears that he Subsequently completed the post-mortem by opening the stomach, but on returning to the inquest to supplement his evidence he found that the coroner and jury had finished the inquiry and gone to their homes. He eeetns to have told a policeman, however, that the sfemaeh contained “ a very email piece of biscuit gnd some banana,” and that the deceased had died from exhaustion. If inquests are to be conducted in the fashion that this one appears to have been, it is scarcely worth while holding them at all.