proper officer in these and in other cases has already been mentioned.1 The witnesses called for the purpose of exculpating a party accused should not be bound over to appear." 3 If a wife is a witness, and her husband is not present to enter into a recognizance, the wife is not to be bound in any penal sum, but on pain of imprisonment. If the husband is present, he must be bound for the appearance of his wife. And if an apprentice or minor is a witness, the master or parent is bound for his appearance.5 The coroner should be present at the assizes, when any case is tried in which an inquisition was taken before him; for if he is not present, the court may fine him." In Prince Edward Island the recognizances of the witnesses under the statute of 1836, must be to appear at the next Supreme Court or Court of Oyer or Terminer and Jail Delivery at which the trial is to take place. SEC. 2.-OF BAIL. Except in the cases of murder and manslaughter mentioned in the last section and in those cases only to the extent there stated, coroners must not accept 1 See Chap. XII. s. 10. 2 Reg. v. Taylor, 9 C. & P. 672. 3 See Form, No. 59, and note thereto. of bail, but if the party accused is advised that he is entitled to be bailed, his remedy is by application to one of the courts. SEC. 3.-OF AMENDING AND TAKING NEW INQUISITIONS. Criminal prosecutions do not come within the benefit of the Statute of Jeofails, yet in furtherance of justice the courts in their discretion have always allowed amendments in inquisitions which, though good in substance, were defective in form.1 And now ample powers of amendment are expressly given to the courts by legislative enactments.2 If the inquisition is quashed, a new inquiry may, by leave of the court,3 be instituted by the coroner, the body being disinterred by order of the court for that purpose, if it has not been a long time buried." But if there is any imputation upon the coroner, he will not be allowed again to make an inquiry, but a writ of melius inquirendum will be awarded to take a new inquisition by special commissioners, who proceed without viewing the body, by the testimony of witnesses only; or if the body can still be viewed, a new inquiry may be ordered to be taken by another coroner, as was done in the case 11 Sid, 225, 259; 3 Mod. 101; 1 Saund. 356; 1 Keb. 907; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 27, s. 15; Jer. O. C. 307. 2 See R. S. O. 1877, c. 79, s. 12. This section was not consolidated or repealed by R. S. O. 1887. But no one can now be tried in Canada See 55-56 V. c. 29, s. 642, Dom. upon a coroner's inquisition. 3 Str. 167. 4 3 Mod. 80. 5 Salk. 377; 1 Str. 22, 533. 6 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 9, 556; 1 Salk. 190. of the disaster on the Solent, arising from the Queen's yacht having run down the private yacht Mistletoe. In the Balham inquiry as to the cause of Mr. Bravo's death, the first inquest not being considered satisfactory, the Attorney-General obtained an order from the Court of Queen's Bench, requiring the coroner to shew cause why a fresh inquiry should not be made, upon which a final order was made quashing the first inquisition, and ordering the coroner to hold a second inquiry before another jury, but on view of the body. This was not done from any defect on the face of the first inquisition, but because circumstances had arisen, subsequent to the first inquest, which caused a suspicion that Mr. Bravo had been poisoned, and had not committed suicide as was at first supposed. C. J. Cockburn, in giving judgment, stated that the court wished it to be distinctly understood that it is not in every case of an incomplete finding of the jury that the court will interfere to quash the inquisition and send the case to a fresh inquiry. It is only where the court sees that there has been a miscarriage, by evidence which might have thrown light upon the subject having been excluded, that they will interfere. The court must take care not uselessly to keep up the excitement in the public mind unless the way seems clear to some practical advantage.1 If the inquisition is quashed for a defect in form only, the coroner may and ought to take a new in 1 The Queen v. Carter, Q. B. D. Weekly Reporter, July 8th, 1876. quisition, in like manner as if he had taken none before.1 But a coroner has no power after holding an inquest super visum corporis and recording the verdict, to hold a second like inquest mero motu, on the same body, the first not having been quashed, and no writ of melius inquirendum having been awarded.2 SEC. 4.-OF TRAVERSING INQUISITIONS. It seems that inquests of coroners are in no case conclusive, but any one effected by them, either collaterally or otherwise, may deny their authority and put them in issue." It has been doubted whether inquiries of felo de se were traversable, but the law appears to be now settled that they are.1 An inquisition cannot be traversed to make a man felo de se who is found not to be so, unless the verdict be obtained by improper conduct of the coroner, when a melius inquirendum may be obtained before special commissioners.5 SEC. 5-OF QUASHING INQUISITIONS. 6 We have seen that no inquisition found upon or by any coroner's inquest, will be quashed for 12 Roll. Abr. 32; 2 H. P. C. 59; 2 Str. 69: Jer. O. C. 91. 2 Reg. v. White, 3 El. & El. 137. 33 Keb. 489; 6 B. & C. 247, 615, 627; Jer. O. C. 312. * See Jer. O. C. 312, 313, 314; 2 Lev. 152. 5 3 Mod. 80; 1 Salk. 190; Jer. O. C. 315; but see Impey O. C. 489. See Chap. XIII. sec. 3; R. S. O. 1877, c. 79, s. 12. want of the averment therein of any matter unnecessary to be proved, nor for the omission of any technical words of mere form, nor for any technical defect; but if an inquisition is so defective that no judgment can be given upon it, it will in general be quashed. Inquisitions which do not contain the subjectmatter of accusation, may be quashed by application to one of the superior courts, the record being first removed there by certiorari. Inquisitions will be quashed if the facts are imperfectly stated, or, as stated, do not amount to a punishable offence, or if the accused parties are designated as. the directors of a railway or other company without naming them, or if the inquisitions are uncertain in their language, or if the finding of the jury is not legally warranted by the facts set forth, or if twelve jurors did not agree in the finding, even if the finding was in other respects good." 3 When an inquisition contains two or more substantial findings, it may be good in part, though void as to the residue." When material evidence has been refused and the jury has brought in an inconclusive verdict, 1 In the case of Reg. v. Johnston, recently before the C. P. Division at Toronto, and known as The Christian Scientist case" the coroner's jury found the scientists guilty of "culpable ignorance in treating the deceased" and they were arrested, but the inquisition was quashed by the court on the ground that culpable ignorance was not a criminal offence. See The Daily Empire, June 6th, 1892. 410. 2 The Queen v. The Directors of the G. W. Railway Co.,L. R. 20 Q. B. D. 3 12 Mod. 112; Reg. v. Bredenstal, 16 U. C. Q. B. 487. Cully, in re 5 B. & Ad. 230; and see Reg. v. Farley, 24 Q. B. 381 Reg. v. Goulding, 39 Q. B. 259. 5 Cabat's Case, 2 Hale P. C. 161 n; Jer. 253. 6 Jer: O. C. 318; ex parte Carruthers, 2 M. & R. 397. |