HC Deb 15 May 1873 vol 215 cc2020-1
MR. STRAIGHT

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a complaint from the relatives of a guard of the name of Poulton, lately in the employ of the Great Northern Railway Company, who was killed at the Southgate Station on the 9th of April last, in reference to the coroner's prolonged delay in holding the inquest; whether it is correct that when such inquest was held there was such a scarcity of jurymen that a lad of 17 was sworn on the jury, and that a person who was an eye-witness to the accident to the deceased was not examined; and, whether, having regard to the hurried and imperfect character of the inquiry, the Right honourable Gentleman will allow the inquest to be re-opened and further investigation to take place?

MR. BRUCE

Sir, I have received a complaint from the son of the deceased man, dated from Leeds, in which he alleges— That his father being a guard of a goods train from Peterborough to London on the 9th of April, had to change some waggons at Southgate Station, and having done so gave the signal to the driver to start, tried to get on to the break, and in doing so, missed his hold of the break, fell underneath the waggons, and was killed. Information, he added, was sent to the Coroner on the 10th, and on the 12th he had not heard from the Coroner as to when the inquest was to be held. The 11th was Good Friday. On Easter Sunday, the 13th, he called on Dr. Lankester, and urgently requested that an inquest might be held on Easter Monday, instead of Tuesday, the day fixed by the Coroner. The Deputy Coroner consequently consented to go to Southgate on the Monday to hold the inquest. In consequence of the change of day, and the fact of it being a general holiday, there was great difficulty in finding a jury, and a nephew of the deceased, who, it appears, was 17 years of age, but who was six feet high and looked older, was sworn on the jury. The necessary number was, according to the Deputy Coroner's statement, completed after he was sworn. A witness who had seen the accident was sent for, but was absent for a holiday; but three other railway servants, who equally witnessed the accident, gave evidence, and proved that the cause of death was, as it also appears from the son's statement, purely accidental. The verdict of the jury was that the deceased came to his death by failing to catch hold of the rail of the van when trying to get into it after he had himself given the signal for the driver to start. But for the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question I should have thought it superfluous to inform so distinguished a lawyer that a Coroner who has held an inquisition and recorded the verdict cannot hold a second inquisition unless the first be quashed by the Court of Queen's Bench, or a melius inquirendum has been awarded, and he be set in motion by the Court. If he do hold such second inquisition without such authority it will be quashed.