coroners by fees necessarily tended to this evil.1 When several coroners acted for one district, the first who held the inquiry was deemed seised of the whole jurisdiction.2 But now each has a district of his own, though a neighbouring coroner may act for another who is unable to attend. As it is the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest on the body of any person who has died a violent death, it is deemed essential that the body should be seen when it is fresh. Hence, if any person bury the body either before the coroner has been informed, and had an opportunity of viewing it, or allow too great time to elapse before the coroner has been informed, this is an indictable offence.*

The body of the dead person is viewed by the coroner and the jurors, because it tends to throw light on all that contributed to the cause of death. He ought, therefore, to cause a jury, consisting of at least twelve persons, to be summoned.5 Any undue delay or refusal is now punishable by attachment on the application of the AttorneyGeneral to the Queen's Bench Division, or by removal by the Lord Chancellor. Wherever the body is found, the coroner of the district has the jurisdiction to hold the inquest, though the causes of death may have occurred elsewhere. And if the inquest is not taken upon the view of the body itself, that is to say, when the body is either present or within access of the jury, the inquest is void.9 It is not, however, essential that both the coroner and jury should view the body at one and the same time, or that the latter be sworn in view of the body, though that is the correct course.10 Indeed, the body itself is deemed part of the evidence before the jury, and according to the ancient practice was deemed to be lying in view during the whole inquiry, the reason for this being, that the body supplies

8

11

special enactments provide that due publicity, and the presence of all interested shall be secured.-35 & 36 Vic. 76, § 50; Ibid. c. 77, § 22. And the same as to railway accidents.-36 & 37 Vic. c. 76, § 5. And deaths in prison.---28 & 29 Vic. c. 126, § 48.

I East. P. C. 382. 2 2 Hale, P. C. 56, 59. 3 7 & 8 Vic. c. 92, § 20. 4 R. v Clark, 1 Salk. 377; Anon. 7 Mod. 10; 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 9, § 23. 5 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 9 §, 22. 6 23 & 24 Vic. c. 116, § 5. 7 Re Ward, 4 L. T., N.S. 458. 6 Vic. c. 12, § 1; R. v Hinde, 5 Q. B. 944. 9 R. v Ferrand, 3 B. & Ald. 260. Io 6 & 7 Vic. c. 83, § 2; R. v Ingham, 5 B. & S. 257. 11 4 Ed. I. st. 2.

important evidence, and that evidence may be rendered futile by long delay. The coroner, when holding his inquiry, should confine this to the antecedents of the death, and though he may inquire into any alleged accessories to the crime, the question whether anyone was an accessory after the fact is in general immaterial.1 In furtherance of his duty he may issue his summons requiring the attendance of a witness, and fine such witness for not attending, or for contempt in not giving evidence.2 And as an inquisition of the coroner is on the footing of an indictment, he is bound to receive evidence on the part of the person accused or suspected.3 He is also bound to take down the material part of the evidence in writing. He may also bind over all material witnesses to appear and give evidence at the trial of the accused. When the coroner finishes his inquiry, and the verdict of the jury is given, the inquisition is drawn up and sealed by the coroner and jury. After which step the function of the coroner is fully discharged, and no second inquisition can be taken till the first is quashed, which it may be on the ground that it was abortive, and that there is reason to believe better evidence is accessible.5 Moreover, the Queen's Bench Division may order a new inquiry before special commissioners.6 Should the verdict be one of guilty, the coroner may issue his warrant to apprehend and commit the prisoner.

4

As the duties of the coroner are paramount to his duties as a citizen, he was always held exempt from those which were inconsistent with his own; and he is also exempted by statute from some others. He was also, as a matter of course, held to be privileged from arrest for civil debt in going to and returning from holding an inquest. The coroner enjoys his office for life, though it used to be vacated by his being appointed to an inconsistent office, as that of sheriff or verderer, incidents which

P.

2 7 & 8 Vic.

C. 60; R. v

12 Hawk. P. C. c. 9, §§ 26, 27; Mirr. 29 Pl. 95. c. 92, § 17; 22 & 23 Vic. c. 21, § 20. 3 2 Hale, Ingham, 5 B. & S. 257. 4 7 Geo. IV. c. 64, § 4. 3 E & E. 1860; R. v Carter, 34 L. T., N. S. 849. 112. 7 2 Rol. Ab. 632, § 4. 8 Ex p. Coroner of Middlesex, 6 H.

& N. 501.

5 R. v White, Anon. 12 Mod.

now can seldom arise.1 A county coroner had no power originally, though an admiralty coroner was by his appointment so authorised, to appoint a deputy;2 but that power is now conferred upon him, so that he may appoint in writing during his pleasure a deputy approved by the Lord Chancellor. Such deputy, however, can only act during the illness of the coroner, or his absence from any lawful or reasonable cause; and absence on a holiday is a very reasonable cause.1 A borough coroner also has a like power to appoint by writing a deputy to act during his illness or unavoidable absence, as, for example, where he is holding another inquest.5

Fees and expenses of coroner.-At first the duties of the coroner were so high, that he was not allowed to claim any remuneration. Fees, however, were soon found necessary as a stimulus to the more efficient discharge of the duties,7 though no fee was allowed to be charged in case of death by misadventure. But fees in turn often led to an officious zeal, and at last the practice of payment by annual salary was adopted in the case of a county coroner; and this salary is paid out of the county rate.9 He is authorised

8

to pay the necessary expenses attending each inquest, according to a scale of allowances settled by the county justices, or in boroughs by the town council.10 He is also authorised to summon and pay medical witnesses, and to direct, if deemed necessary by him, a post-mortem examination, and he is bound to do so on a requisition from a majority of the jury." And such medical practitioner, as may be summoned, is bound under a penalty to attend as a witness.12

Removing or dismissing a coroner.—A coroner was liable by several statutes to punishment for misconduct in his office,13 and he was also liable to indictment on criminal

1 1 Bl. Com. 348. 2 2 Hale, P. C. 57; 1 East, P. C. 383; R. v Ferrand, 3 B. & Ald. 260. 36 & 7 Vic. c. 83, § 1. 4 R. v Johnson, 42 L. J., M. C. 41, 5 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 105, § 6; 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76, § 63; R. v Perkin, 7 Q. B. 165. 6 West. 1st, c. 10; 2 Inst. 173; 1 Bl. Com. 347. 7 3 Hen. VII. c. 1, § 4; 2 Inst. 176; 25 Geo. II. c. 29; 1 Vic. c. 68, § 3. 8 1 Hen. VIII. c. 7. 9 23 & 24 Vic. c. 116. 10 1 Vic. c. 68; 23 & 24 Vic. c. 116, § 4. 11 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 89; 1 Vic. c. 68, § 2; 23 & 24 Vic. c. 12 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 89, § 6. 13 3 Ed. I. c. 9; 1 Hen.

116, § 1. VIII. c.

7

;

3 Hen. VII. c. 1; Hale, P. C. 58.

information for gross misconduct.1 The ancient mode of getting rid of him was by a writ of de coronatore exonerando, which assigned reasons why he should be removed from the office, as age, illness, corruption, imprisonment, or an incompatible office. This writ was issued by the Court of Chancery on a petition of the freeholders, verified by affidavit, and the coroner had notice of its contents; though it was held that he could not traverse the cause recited in the writ. An enactment facilitated the same object by allowing a court, before which certain coroners were convicted, to adjudge, that they should be removed from their office.5 And the Lord Chancellor is now expressly authorised to remove all coroners for inability or misbehaviour in their office, as for example for drunkenness.6

If coroner's court a public court.-It has been disputed whether the coroner's court is a public or private court. The notoriety of the inquiry and the supposed duty of all to attend no doubt practically made it so.

And the coroner, though nowhere expressly ordered to hear witnesses on both sides, is clearly bound by the rules of justice to hear one side as well as another, seeing that his sole object is the truth. And counsel have a right to be heard for a party concerned in the inquest, as well as for the friends of the deceased party. Indeed if a witness is willing to give evidence which may criminate him, it is no part of the duty of the coroner to refuse to examine such witness.8 But as the inquiry is wide and indeterminate and no individual is charged, and it may end in no accusation being made at all, there is good ground for holding, that the court is not an open court, and that the coroner has a discretion as to admitting persons not interested or not closely connected with the inquiry. At least a coroner has been held entitled to exclude at his discretion from his court a person in no way interested in the subject. Cases may occur in which privacy may bę requisite for the sake of decency; others in which it may

9

1 R. v Scory, Leach, C. C. 43. 2 2 Inst. 132; Fitz. N. B. 163; Ex p. Parnell, 1 J. & W. 452. 3 3 Atk. 184; Re Ward, 30 L. J., Ch. 775. 45 Rep. 58; Fitz. N. B. 164. 5 25 Geo. II. c. 29, § 6. 6 23 & 24 Vic. c. 116, § 6; Re Ward, 30 L. J., Ch. 775. 7 2 Hale, P. C. 60; R v Ingham, 5 B. & S. 257. 8 Wakely v Cooke, 4 Exch. 511. 9 Garnett v Ferrand, 6 B. & C. 611.

be due to the family of the deceased; and the propriety of the coroner's decision on this subject cannot be questioned. Moreover, a coroner's court being a court of record, one of the incidents of such court is, that the judge is not liable for any mistake made in performing the duties of judge.1 But it is not a continuing court, and if it is adjourned to a particular day, and no court is held or further adjourned, the proceeding drops and cannot be resumed.2

The coroner's jury and verdict.-The jury assisting the coroner is taken from the neighbourhood, that is to say, from the county at large, and he may fine jurymen for not attending. Their number must exceed twelve. And if a majority of twelve agree, their verdict may be accepted; but if such a majority do not agree, they can only after a reasonable time be discharged. Though by analogy to other cases the jury should accept the views of the law, laid before them by the coroner, and confine themselves to the finding of facts; yet if they do transgress their province, there is no way provided for remedying their mistake, and the old remedy of proceeding by attaint against juries was abolished in 1826.5 When the coroner's inquisition is drawn up, it is equivalent to a finding by a grand jury, and the party charged may be tried upon the inquisition, and technical objections are to some extent restrained; and the trial may be directed by the High Court to be had in a different place from the venue in the inquisition.7

6

Attempts to murder how far crime.-The crime of murder necessarily supposes, that life has been taken, but owing to the variety of circumstances which may interpose between the felonious design, existing in the mind of the murderer, and the execution of that design, it frequently happens that the intention has fallen short of a fatal issue. The essence of all crime being the state of mind and the evil intent, the guilt of the chief actor may, in point of morality, be the same as if the fatal result which he intended, and took the means to effect, had been duly attained; nevertheless, the law gives him the benefit

1 Thomas v Churton, 2 B. & S. 475. 2 R. v Payn, 34 L. J., Q. B. 59. 3 7 & 8 Vic. c. 92, § 17. 4 2 Hale, P. C. 297. 5 6 Geo. IV. c. 50, § 62. 6 6 & 7 Vic. c. 83, § 2; 14 & 15 Vic. c. 100, §§ 23, 24; R. v Ingham, 5 B. & S. 257. 7 R. v Palmer, 5 E. & B. 1024.