In Nova Scotia, when the inquest is held on the body of a person who has been killed by an explosion or accident in a mine, and the majority of the jury think it necessary, the coroner must adjourn the inquest to enable the inspector or some other properly qualified person appointed by the commissioner, to be present to watch the proceedings; and in these cases the adjournment must be long enough to allow of four days' notice in writing of the time and place of holding the adjourned inquest, to be given to the commissioner. Nothing should be done at the inquest in such cases beyond taking evidence to identify the body and to order its interment if thought proper, until the adjourned meeting.1

In New Brunswick, after the inquest the coroner must grant a permissive warrant for burial of the deceased and the body must be delivered to any of his relatives or friends who wish to take charge of the burial, and if no one undertakes the duty, and the body is within the city of St. John, or within five miles of the alms house of the city of Frederickton, the towns of Portland or St. Andrews, or any other town or parish with an established alms house, it must be sent to the dead house in charge of the constable attending the inquest, and be delivered to the keeper thereof, accompanied by the warrant, to be by the constable delivered to, or left at the residence of the overseers of the poor of the parish wherein the body was found, or any one of them, who shall bury the deceased in the

1 R. S. N. S. c. 8, s. 24.

2 See Form, No. 46.

same manner as if he had died a pauper, unless otherwise directed by the coroner. Should the distance be beyond such limits, the warrant must direct the constable to bury the body in a decent manner with proper economy, and to render an account of the expenses to the coroner which, with the constable's fees for burying the body, must be paid to the constable by the overseers of the poor of such parish on the order of the coroner stating the charge is reasonable and proper.1

SEC. 9.-THE MEDICAL TESTIMONY.

If in Ontario or New Brunswick the coroner finds that the deceased was attended during his last illness or at his death by any legally qualified 2 medical practitioner, he may issue his order for the attendance of such practitioner as a witness at such inquest. Or if the coroner finds that the deceased was not so attended, he may issue his order for the attendance of any legally qualified medical practitioner, being at the time in actual practice, in or near the place where the death happened; and the coroner may, at any time before the termination of the inquest, direct a post mortem examination, with or without an analysis of the contents of the

1C. S. N. B. 1877, c. 63, s. 6.

2 Legally qualified practitioners are persons duly licensed. If there be any doubt whether a medical man is licensed or not, he should be asked at a convenient time to produce his license. Some coroners adopt the plan of examining the medical witness upon oath as to his being licensed.

3 See Form, No. 33, and R. S. O. c. 80, s. 7; C. S. N. B. c. 63, s. 1. * See Form, No. 33, and R. S. O. c. 80, s. 8.

stomach or intestines, by the medical witness summoned to attend at such inquest.

And Prof. Tidy states that if the medical attendant of the deceased is in any way inculpated, or his treatment called in question, or if any accusation regarding the death or treatment of the deceased has been made by a medical man, he should not perform the post mortem, and that it is not advisable that he should even be present at it, but he should be represented by a medical friend if he so desires.1

In a case of death occurring in a pugilistic encounter, it was held to be the duty of the coroner to examine a surgeon as to the cause of death.2

It is usual, and coroners are most strongly recommended to have the analysis made by an experienced chemist.3

If in Ontario and New Brunswick any person states upon oath before the coroner that in his belief the death was caused partly or entirely by the improper or negligent treatment of a medical practitioner or other person, such medical practitioner or other person must not assist at the post mortem examination.*

Whenever it appears to the majority of the jurymen sitting at any coroner's inquest in Ontario and New Brunswick that the cause of death has not been satisfactorily explained by the evidence of the medical practitioner, or other witnesses examined 1 Tidy, Vol. I., p. 4.

2 R. v. Quinch, 4 C. & P. 571.

3 See remarks as to analysis, post.

R. S. O. c. 80, s. 8; C. S. N. B. c. 63, s. 1.

in the first instance, such majority may name to the coroner in writing any other legally qualified medical practitioner or practitioners, and require the coroner to issue his order1 for the attendance of such medical practitioner or practitioners as a witness or witnesses, and for the performance of a post mortem examination as above mentioned, and whether before performed or not.

A second medical practitioner cannot properly be called by the coroner alone. The majority of the jury must ask for him, and name him to the coroner in writing. If the request is not in writing his fees need not be paid by the County Treasurer.2

When in Ontario any such order for the attendance of a medical practitioner is personally served, or if not so served, but is received by him, or left at his residence in sufficient time for him to obey such order, and he does not obey the same, he forfeits the sum of forty dollars upon complaint by the coroner who held the inquest, or by any two of the jurymen thereof, made before any two justices of the peace of the county where the inquest was held, or of the county where such medical practitioner resides. And if such medical practitioner does not shew a sufficient reason for not having obeyed such order, the justices must enforce the penalty by distress and sale of the offender's goods, in the same manner as they are empowered to do under their summary jurisdiction."

1 See Form, No. 33.

2 In re Harbottle and Wilson, 30 U. C. Q. B. 314. And see form No. 42. 3R. S. O. c. 80, s. 11. The coroner alone is the proper person to say first of all whether medical testimony is called for or not; but when he does order such evidence to be procured, the jury have then the right

The medical witness should be given an order on the County Treasurer for his fees, and if the fees are not paid, or the coroner refuses an order for them, the remedy is by mandamus, and when it is applied for on the ground of refusal by the coroner to give the order, the county treasurer as well as the coroner should be called upon.1

The practitioner chosen to make a post mortem examination should be the best qualified the neighbourhood affords; and when he is giving his evidence the coroner should get as much information from him as possible, for he will generally prove the most important witness at the inquest.2 The medical witness had better be examined after the principal unprofessional witnesses, in order that he may have their testimony to aid his conclusions, and to avoid having to recall him for the purpose of asking additional questions suggested by the other evidence.3

Medical men in giving their evidence have no special privilege with respect to secrets of a professional nature.

The medical testimony should be as free from technical terms as possible, and be taken down in full.

above mentioned, to have more medical evidence if they think it requisite. When considering if they shall summon a medical man, coroners should. not be influenced by the jurymen desiring to find out the precise cause of death in cases where there can be no doubt of the deceased having died from natural causes. Juries very commonly think they ought to discover, in all cases, what occasioned the death; but this is a mistake, for if no one is to blame in the matter, no practical benefit can arise from finding the deceased died from any particular disease. The expense of medical testimony, therefore, in these cases should be avoided, and for this purpose the desire of the jury resisted.

1 In re Harbottle and Wilson, 30 U. C. Q. B. 314.

2 U. C. Law Journal, Vol. I. p. 85.

3 U. C. Law Journal, Vol. I. p. 84.