First report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests, and into the practice in coroners' courts.

  • Great Britain. Committee on Coroners.
Date:
1909
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: First report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests, and into the practice in coroners' courts. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    8/254 (page 2)
    10. And in modern times, I suppose they are almost unknown ?—Such a case has not come within my personal knowledge at all. I think it is very rare. The only other possible function, I think, that the coroner can have is to pronounce judgment in outlawry, but judgment in outlawry is now almost extinct. ze 11. Outlawry in civil cases is now abolished; itis only in criminal cases that outlawry remains ?—The last case, I think, is reported in Law Reports, 3 Chancery Appeals, 1868. 12. That was a criminal case where a man fled the kingdom, was it not?—Yes. The coroner only comes in in outlawry after the sheriff has done all his duty. The sheriff has to call the defendant into the county court five times. 13. That is the old county court, not the modern court ?—Yes, the old county court of freeholders ; and if the defendant does not appear upon the quinto exactus, then the coroner is called upon to pronounce judgment of outlawry, or waiver in the case of a woman. Those are the only four functions, I think, that a coroner can be called upon to perform in modern days. 14. (Dr. Willcow.) Is there not investigation of fires P—Yes, in London; but I was speaking of coroners generally. In London the coroner may investigate the origin of fires in certain circumstances that are set out in the Act that governs the case. 15. (Chairman.) The general powers of coroners were formerly much more extensive ?—Yes, they were much more extensive in the early middle ages. Although their chief function was to hold inquests on the bodies of those who were supposed to have died either by violence or accident, and on the bodies of those who died in prison, yet according to Britton, volume L, page 8, they also held inquests in cases of serious bodily injury, rape and prison breach, and according to Bracton, vol. IL., page 280, in cases of breaking of houses. 16. Practically nearly every felony P—Yes ; they assumed at all events the power of inquiry into felonies generally, although there are many cases where they were reprimanded for doing so. They also inquired in cases of treasure trove and wreck, concerning which if any laid hands on it he was to be attached, and the prices of the wreck valued and delivered to the town, that is to say, the town where the wreck was found. I should say that inquiry into wreck was specially forbidden by the Coroners’ Act of 1887. Then, again, their duties in holding inquests on dead bodies also were more comprehensive, because they had to value the goods of the person accused; that is to say, if a jury found that there was murder or manslaughter or felc de se, then the jury had, under the direction of the coroner, to value the chattels of the person accused, and they were handed over to the town in which the dead body lay to retain. Then when the accused was prose- cuted at the Eyre, if he was convicted the goods were forfeited to the Crown. That forfeiture of the felon’s chattels was abolished, and the function of the coroner with regard thereto ceased to be operative. 17. If ITremember rightly, forfeiture for felony was only abolished in 1870 ?—That is so. 18. Up to that date the coroner had to find the value of the goods; or had this become obsolete ?—In cases of murder the practice was abolished by 1 Ric. 3, c. 3, but in cases of felo de se continued until 1870. Then also they valued the deodand up to the abolition of deodands ; that is to say, when any person was killed the object by which he was killed had to be valued, and the value of the deodand was forfeited to the Crown. 19. For instance, if he was killed by a bull ?—If he was killed by a bull, or even run down by a ship. The bull was valued and the price of the bull was forfeited to the Crown. The bull itself was killed. It was not exactly by direction of the coroner that the animal was killed, because I think there was a notion that it came under the Levitical law. But it was « serious matter when it came to a question of the running down of a man by a ship and of confiscating the ship. 20. It would be more serious almost than in the case of a railway accident if you confiscated the engine ?—~ It would be now. Deodands were abolished in 1846. Up to that time the coroner’s Jury had to value them, 21. Theoretically at any rate the law was as you say, though practically it was not enforced in the case of ships, was it?—Yes; there was a great case where the jury did assess the value of a steamboat, and it was only by getting the inquisition quashed on a technicality that the owners got off having it confiscated. No doubt that brought attention to the matter. Then the coroners in old times received declarations of appro- vers, persons who had information to give about crimes ; they heard ordinary appeals, that is to say, criminal accusations brought by one person against another, the final trial being reserved for the Eyre; and in that way they acted much in the manner of modern justices— that is to say, the receiving of these declarations of approvers was like receiving complaints in a police court. 22. Then they committed the persons for trial P— Yes, they were tried at the Eyre. 23. How have those jurisdictions been shed, apart from statute >—They never had, so far as one can find, any statutory authority ; they may have had a common law authority; they seem to have had common law authority, and in fact the great statute relating to the coroners, 3 and 4 Edward I., is only declaratory, It is said to be a declaration of the common law. It is very independently of it, in Britton, which is about the same date. These functions have dropped off bit by bit. For instance, one of the coroner’s offices was to attend sanctuary and receive confessions of felony and abjura- tion of the realm. When a criminal was pursued he could take sanctuary in a church, or later, even in some other less sanctified places than churches, and as long as he stayed there he was safe. If he wanted to come out he had the choice either of being caught and handed over to justice or making his confession of felony and abjuring the realm, in which case he was seen to quit the country, and it was the coroner’s duty to receive his confession and abjuration, and to see him out of the country. Those are duties which the coroner undertook and performed in the old time, all of which have gone, and the four only that I mentioned at first remain. 24. Can you tell us anything about his original jurisdiction as to fires ?—He had no jurisdiction as to fires at all, and there was prohibition in the case of The Queen v. Herford (5 Ellis and Ellis, page 115) where a coroner was going to hold an inquest on fires. 25. (Six Malcolm Morris.) Without a death ?—Yes, 26. (Chairman.) Would he have had any jurisdic- tion if the fire was by way of arson ?—Not unless there was death. Under his old assumed jurisdiction he might. inquire into almost any felony, but that was never a recognised duty. 27. By the courts ?—It was rather a usurped function. 28. Would you now kindly tell us what the various classes of coroners are. First-of all there are certain coroners by virtue of their office >—Yes, those are the judges. They were formerly the judges of the King’s Bench only. The Chief Justice of course was the sovereign coroner. As Chief Justice Glyn and other of the chief justices have said, “ I can hold an inquest in any part of the kingdom.” And that was true of all judges of the King’s Bench. 29. They were all ew officio coroners P—They were all ex officio coroners ; and now, since the Judicature Act, the office of each individual judge of the King’s Bench may be performed by any judge of the High Court. 30. Is a commissioner of assize ex officco a coroner while he is in commission ?—I do not think so. I think he must be a judge of the High Court, and the fact that you are commissioner of assize would not make you coroner, I think—there is no authority to that effect. I could be made a commissioner of assize or any member of the inner bar may be sent round as commissioner of assize, but I do not think that would make me a coroner unless the patent specially said I should be a coroner. 31. I am asking for this reason: if the coroner’s jury cannot agree the inquest is adjourned to the assizes. Supposing instead of a High Court judge holding the