UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
SCHOOL OF LAW
LIBRARY
The
Office and Duties of Coroners
in Pennsylvania
An Essay
Awarded the Peter Stephen Duponceau Prize, by the Law Academy
of Philadelphia
This volume can be bound in buckram by
Geo. T. Bisel & Co., 724 Sansom St., Phila-
delphia, for fifty cents.
PHILADELPHIA
INTERNATIONAL PRINTING COMPANY
1*11
The
Office and Duties of Coroners
in Pennsylvania
An Essay
Awarded the Peter Stephen Duponceau Prize, by the Law Academy
of Philadelphia
by
Graham Cox Woodward
of the Philadelphia Bar
PHILADELPHIA
INTERNATIONAL PRINTING COMPANY
1911
T
Copyright 1911,
by
Graham Cox Woodward
PREFACE.
The following essay was written for the Peter Stephen
Duponceau prize of the Law Academy of Philadelphia, and
was awarded the prize in 1908. The delays which have
accompanied its publication can best be atoned for by saying
that it has been brought down to date by the author, who
submits it as presenting the law of coroners as it stands to-
day in Pennsylvania. The author desires to express his
thanks to Mr. Justice Potter and to Judges Lamorelle and
McPherson, the committee of the Faculty of the Law
Academy, for their painstaking care in examining the essay
prior to awarding the prize above mentioned and for the
helpful suggestions made by them in regard thereto. The
index has been built around the West Publishing Com-
pany's analysis of the subject as it appears in the American
Digest with as few additions as possible, and for the kind
permission to use this analysis the author takes pleasure in
thus publicly expressing his thanks to the West Publishing
Company. The author also desires to express his apprecia-
tion of the universal kindness and helpfulness of Luther E.
Hewitt, Esq., Librarian of the Law Association Library.
G. C. W.
Philadelphia, September i, 1911.
(iii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION
Page 3
PARTI
CHAPTER I
THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE OFFICE OF CORONER IN
ENGLAND, TOGETHER WITH HIS POWERS AND DUTIES.
Page 7
i. Age of the office of coroner.
2. Office adapted to Norman notions.
3. Earliest traces of the history of the office.
4. Evidence of the office prior to 1194.
5. Charters of Colchester and Norwich.
6. Other early traces.
7. Offices of similar character in early times.
8. Coroner's powers to hold pleas of the Crown.
9. The laws of Henry I and earlier laws.
10. Difficulties with the theory that the office was created
in 1194.
II. Another theory of the rise of the office.
12. History of the office during the reign of King John.
13. Office held by knights.
CHAPTER II
DEFINITION AND DIFFERENT KINDS OF CORONERS IN ENGLAND
THEIR JURISDICTION
Page 20
14. Definition.
15. Different kinds of coroners.
16. Coroner's virtute officio.
17. Coroner's virtute cartae s'vue commissionis.
1 8. Coroner of the verge.
(v)
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
19. Coroner of the admiralty.
20. Coroners of franchises.
21. The case of London.
22. Limitations on the powers of coroners virtute cartae
sive commissionis.
23. Coroner's virtute electionis.
24. Jurisdiction.
CHAPTER III
THE STATUTE DE OFFICIO CORONATORIS
Page 37
25. Introductory.
26. The text of the statute.
27. The statute compared with Bracton's Treatise.
28. The statute of I Richard II as modifying the rigors of
the statute de officio coronatoris.
CHAPTER IV
THE ELECTION AND QUALIFICATION OF CORONERS
Page 44
29. Elections of coroners, the writ de coronatore elegendo.
30. Qualifications.
31. Removal from office, the writ de coronatore exonerando.
CHAPTER V
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS
Page 54
32. Introductory.
33. Seven duties of the coroner.
34. Inquests of death.
35. Inquests other than death.
36. Power to receive appeals.
37. Outlawry.
38. Sanctuary and abjurations.
39. Penalties for neglect and misfeasance.
40. The coroner's court.
41. Deputies and assistants.
42. Subsidiary powers.
43. Fees.
44. Privileges.
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
CHAPTER VI
CORONER'S INQUESTS IN ENGLAND
Page 89
45. Introductory.
46. Cases where inquiry should be held.
47. Time and place of holding the inquest.
48. Scope of the inquiry.
49. What circumstances rendered necessary a second inquest.
50. How inquest was taken.
51- Jury-
52. Evidence and witnesses.
53. Inquiry to be impartial.
54. Publicity and power to exclude.
55. Deodands.
56. Englishery.
CHAPTER VII
THE EFFECT OF THE INQUEST AND RETURN
Page 123
57. Contents, form and requirements.
58. Credit.
59. Effect of inquisition as evidence.
CHAPTER VIII
THE MINISTERIAL DUTIES OF CORONERS
Page 139
60. Ministerial duties of coroners.
PART II
THE OFFICE AND DUTIES OF CORONERS IN PENNSYLVANIA
VIEW IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR ORIGIN.
CHAPTER I
THE EARLY HISTORY OF CORONERS IN PENNSYLVANIA
Page 145
61. Early history of the office in Pennsylvania.
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER II
ELECTION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF CORONERS AND VACANCIES
IN THE OFFICE
Page 149
62: Election.
63. Oath.
64. Bond.
65. Vacancies.
CHAPTER III
THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF CORONERS
Page 156
66. Duties in Colonial times.
67. Differences in the office in Pennsylvania definition.
68. Judicial duties.
69. Subsidiary powers.
70. Jurisdiction.
71. Preliminary view and investigation.
72. Registration of death and care of body.
73. Penalties for negligence and misfeasance.
CHAPTER IV
CORONER'S DEPUTIES
Page i 66
74. Justice of the peace acting as coroner.
75. Meliiis inquirendum in America.
76. Deputy coroners.
CHAPTER V
THE CORONER'S JURY
Page 176
77. Coroner's jury.
CHAPTER VI
THE CORONER'S INQUEST WHEN HELD
Page 1 80
78. Object of the inquest.
79. Preliminary view and investigation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
80. When the inquest should be held.
81. Specific cases discussed definition of "violence."
82. The Act of 1866 relating to Luzerne County.
83. Inquests where death is suspicious.
84. Inquests where cause of death is known.
85. Suicide.
86. Accidental death.
87. Inquests at the cost of the parties requesting them.
CHAPTER VII
THE CORONER'S INQUEST How HELD
Page 208
88. Notification of the coroner.
89. Autopsy.
90. Publicity.
91. View.
92". Right to counsel.
923. Arrangement and conduct of the court.
CHAPTER VIII
EFFECT AND RETURN OF THE INQUISITION
Page 221
93. Inquisition, its contents and requisites.
94. Approval and amendment.
95. Effect of inquisition.
96. Depositions before the coroner as evidence.
CHAPTER IX
THE CORONER'S DUTIES IN REGARD TO MINES
Page 226
97. Coroner's duties in regard to mines.
CHAPTER X
THE CORONER'S DUTIES IN REGARD TO MORGUES
Page 229
98. Coroner's duties in regard to morgues.
x TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER XI
MINISTERIAL DUTIES OF CORONERS
Page 231
983. Ministerial duties of coroners.
CHAPTER XII
ACCOUNTS AND COMPENSATION OF CORONERS
Page 234
99. Fees of coroners.
ico. Early laws on the subject.
101. Approval of inquest requisite to payment of fees.
102. Analysis of present fees.
103. Ancillary expenses.
104. Fees of deputy coroners.
105. Duplication of fees.
106. Coroner's salaries.
CONCLUSION
Page 249
APPENDICES
Page 252
THE OFFICE AND DUTIES OF CORONERS IN
PENNSYLVANIA.
INTRODUCTION.
When Cain killed Abel (a) a situation arose which was
new to the world. Disputes between man and man were
infrequent and the tribunal before which they were tried
was never reversed by a higher court. The Almighty was
nearer men in those days; He took part in their affairs in
a more personal way than He has found necessary since
men have learned to judge each other. It would appear
that no coronor's inquest was held over the body of Abel
(a) nor were the first finders attached according to the laws
of England (&).
In almost every civilized nation government officials
investigate sudden deaths which are or seem unnatural or
which are suspicious (c). The need of so doing is obvious
for the guilty might escape or the innocent be suspected of
the most heinous of all crimes were it not for swift and
certain investigation when the body of one suddenly dead
is found (d).
Among the Chinese an officer of the government in-
quires into all cases of sudden death. In France (e) Ger-
(o) Genesis, Chapter IV, verse 8.
(&) Select Coroners Rolls' Selden Society, Vol. 9, pages i, 2, 3,
4, et seq., and see Bracton, I2ib.
(c) See 6 Am. Law Reg. (O. S.) 385, n Am. Law Reg. 488
Umf. Lex. Cor. 10.
(d) See Post. Section 34,
(e) See Code d'Instruction Criminell Arts. 44-281, Hubert's
Manuel des Lois, 133, 6 Am. Law Reg. (O. S.) 385. "In France the
Procureur, the prosecuting officer, proceeds to the place where a
crime has been committed and makes the investigation. He has power
to summon witnesses and take their testimony in writing, which is
read to and signed by them, to prevent egress from the house or de-
parture from the neighborhood, when he deems it necessary; and to
seize all papers and other articles supposed to be connected with the
crime. He is authorized to take with him to the place of the crime
one or two persons by their art or profession capable of appreciating
the nature and circumstances of the crime ; and where a violent or
suspicious death is the subject of inquiry, he is aided by one or two
(3)
4 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
many (/) Austria (0) Scotland (h) and even in Russia
($) a medical examiner employed by the government ex-
amines the bodies of all who may come to their end by
unnatural means. He reports all cases where crime is sus-
pected to the prosecuting authorities for further investi-
gation (&). There is, however, no trace of the officer or
functions of the coroner among the early Hindu laws (/).
It may therefore be that this institution is one belonging to
a more advanced state of civilization (m).
In England the practice of investigating such cases is
an old one (n). The duties arising upon the sudden death
of an individual devolve upon the coroner. It may be that
the office took its origin from another source (0), but it is
certain that these duties formed part of the ancient func-
tions of the coroner.
In America it has always been the practice to hold an
inquisition over the bodies of those suddenly dead. The
limits of this institution and its development in Pennsylvania
properly belong to another part of this work (/>). Suffice it
to say here that the custom is almost co-eval with English
settlements in this country.
health officers, always physicians, who are to report the cause of
death, and the condition of the body. He is the person subsequently
charged with prosecution of the criminal. Teulet Les Codes, 1860.
In Austria, this function likewise devolves upon the public prosecutor.
In Prussia the Judge of first instance assisted by a surgeon and an
actuary and two officers of the court makes the investigation. The
procedure there is as well by hearing testimony for and against the
accused, as by repeatedly questioning the accused with a view to
obtaining a confession. Mittermayer's Feuerbach's Lehrbuch. In
Scotland the 'Crowner' is the same as the Procureur in France." See
ii Am. L. R. 488.
(/) 6 Am. Law Reg. (O. S.) 385. In Bavaria the Ordinance
Royale, March 31, 1826, provides for the inspection of dead bodies by
government medical men.
(g) 6 Am. Law Reg. (O. S.) 385.
(h) See article by R. W. Renton, 5 Judicial Review, 167.
(i) 6 Am. Law Reg. (O. S.) 385.
() It is argued from this in the article in n Am. Law Reg. 488,
that the office of coroner is quite different from the Continental
method. (See note e, supra), but the object is the same.
(/) See Maine's Ancient Law.
(m) See Post, Part I, Chapter i.
(H) See Post, Sects. 9, 10, 11 and 2 Inst. 31.
(0) See Post, Sec. 11, and see article by Charles Gross, 7 Pol.
Set. Quar. 656.
(/>) Part II.
INTRODUCTION 5
Two points of great interest arise when we begin the
study of the office and duties of coroners in Pennsylvania.
First: There is no general legislation in this State as to
the duties of coroners (g). It was reported by the judges
who investigated .the condition of the law of this common-
wealth in 1808 that several of the older English Statutes
were still in force in Pennsylvania (r). As a corollary to
this proposition, it follows that the English Common Law
whether in construing the statutes or otherwise, except in
so far as it is altered by the change of our form of govern-
ment, and the changed conditions the colonists found in
America, is also in force here (s). From this it is obvious
that a competent understanding of the law of coroners in
Pennsylvania can only be had by a careful study of the
English law prior to the emigration of the colonists to
America. In order to meet present conditions fairly and
understandingly, it is necessary to divide the consideration
of the whole subject into two main heads : first, a consider-
ation of the origin and growth of the office of coroner in
England together with his powers and duties there down to
the settlement of our forefathers in this country (f) ; and
secondly, the office and duties of coroners in Pennsylvania
viewed in the light of their origin (w).
The second point of interest which draws our atten-
tion is that in obscure times the office of coroner and the
methods of his inquest may have had much to do with the
rise and development of the system of trial by jury (z/).
The discussion of this topic properly belongs in another
part of this work.
The subject of coroners is closely allied to that of
(q) Ex parte Schulz, 6 Whart. 269-272 (1841); Rentschler v.
Schuylkill County, I Schuyl. Leg. Rec. 289 ( 1880) ; Lancaster County
v. Dern, 2 Grant, 252 (1852), and see McFadgen v. Chester County, 10
Pa. C. C. R. 124, s. c. 7 Mont. 149 (1891) ; Pickett v. Erie County, 19
W. N. C. 60 s. c., 3 Pa. C. C. R. 23 (1887); Robert's Digest, 100, et
seq.
(r) 3 Binney, 599-601, Robert's Digest, 100, et seq., and see Post,
Part II.
(s) See Part II.
(0 Part I.
() Part II.
(v) See Gross, Introduction to Select Coroners' Rolls, XXX.
6 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
sheriffs and trenches somewhat upon that of crimes. If
both of these subjects were to be investigated at full length
there would be no room for a consideration of the proper
duties of the office of coroner. To avoid unnecessarily en-
cumbering this essay with irrelevant matter the fact that
the coroner is under certain circumstances to assume the
duties of some other officer (w) has been carefully noted,
but the duties themselves have not been considered. It is
necessary to go into the nature of the crimes investigated
by coroners to a certain extent, but this has been done as
briefly and concisely as possible, not in the hope of escaping
the additional labor, but because these subjects are more
properly discussed under their own headings.
(a/) For example, the Sheriff or Prothonotary.
PART I.
The Origin and Growth of the Office of Coroner in Eng-
land Together with his Powers and Duties.
CHAPTER I.
EARLY HISTORY OF CORONERS.
Sect. i. Sir William Blackstone discreetly remarked
(a) that "the coroner's is also a very ancient office at the
common law." This is undoubtedly true. Two questions,
however, arise at once; how ancient is it, and what was its
origin? Careful study of the first of these questions leads
us to agree with Doderidge, J., who said that the office is
so old that no one knows its origin (6). There are several
opinions upon the question. Great authorities have spoken
very confidently (c), but they are irreconcilable. Most
modern writers conclude that the twentieth chapter of the
Articles in Eyre of 1194 give rise to the office of coroner
(d). The Mirror places the date of its origin in Saxon
times (e). Upon the authority of that statement some of
(o) i Blackstone's Commentaries, 346, citing 2 Coke's Institutes,
31 and 4 Coke's Institutes, 271.
(&) 3 Bulstrode, 176.
(c) Mirror, C. I, Sect. 3; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown,
48-49; 2 Coke's Institutes, 31; Bacon on Government, 57; I Blackstone's
Commentaries, 347; Comyns' Digest, title Officer, G. 2; 6 Viner's
Abridgment, 242; Bacon's Abridgment, title Coroners; Selden's Char-
ters, 260; Stubbs' Constitutional History, Vol. I, p. 505; I Stephen's
Criminal Law, 217; Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XV;
and see Maitland, Gneist, Bigelow, Palgrave and Reeves.
(d) "Praetea in quolibet comitatu eligantur tres milites et unus
clericus custodes placitorum coronae." See Stubbs' Constitutional His-
tory, Vol. I, p. 505, where it is said the first writer to mention the
office is Bracton, who gave its duties so fully as to imply it was
recently established. But it is respectfully submitted that to clearly
define the duties of the office is to indicate that it had been long estab-
lished. See also article by Charles Gross, 7 Political Science Quarterly,
656, published in 1892, afterwards expanded into the introduction to
Select Coroners Rolls, Volume 9, of the Selden Society series; and see
also Maitland, Gneist, Bigelow, Stephen, Palgrave and Reeves.
(e) C. j, Sect. 3, Auxi ordains fuer coroner's in chescun county et
viscounts a garder le peace quant les countees sui demisterent del gard
et bayliffs in lieu de centeners. 2 Coke's Institutes, 31-174. See Crabbe,
History of Law of England, CXI (1831).
(7)
8 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
the most revered writers on the law have gone so far as to
say that the office was created in the time of King Alfred
(/). It is stated (g) that in the reign of that monarch the
earls were called to London and made into a parliament
(h) t they then surrendered their wardship of the counties,
and coroners and sheriffs were then ordained to keep the
peace (t)-
Nathaniel Bacon casts a doubt upon this (&), but as-
sures us that King Alfred put one of his judges to death
for passing the death sentence on a man upon the record
of the coroner only, without allowing the delinquent liberty
to traverse (/). He seems to think the coroner's office was
then as well established and his duties as clearly defined as
they are today, but he gives no authority for his statement.
In the charter of King Aethelstan to the monastery 1 of St.
John of Beverly, A. D. 925, we find mention of the office
as one of long standing (m). The Charter rhymes. King
Canute is supposed to have made a law that whenever a
Dane was found dead and was unknown and the cause of
death was not known it should be entered murder and the
(/) 2 Coke's Institutes, 31 ; Comyns' Digest, title Officer, G. 2 ; 6
Viner's Abridgment, 242; i Blackstone's Commentaries, 346. "It is
evident he was an officer in Alfred's time, for that king put a judge
to death for sentencing one to suffer death upon the coroner's record
without allowing the delinquent liberty to traverse"; but Viner thinks
him later than the sheriff, more the servant of the king of the two, 6
Viner's Abridgment, 242.
(g) Mirror, C. I, Sect. 3.
(/t) Doubt is cast on the whole by this statement, for it is very
doubtful.
(i) Spel. I, Vice Com. Lamb Eiren ; Jervis on Coroners, 2 and 3 ;
Bacon's Abridgement, title Coroners ; i Blackstone's Commentaries, 347 ;
2 Coke's Institutes, 31. It is doubtful if the office is as old as that of
sheriff if what Lord Coke says to the effect that the office of sheriff
was incident to that of Proconsul under the Roman rule (Coke upon
Littleton, 168 A) is correct.
(jfe) Bacon on Government, 66; 6 Viner's Abridgment, 242.
(/) Bacon on Government, 57.
(m) "If a man be found slain idrunkend
Sterved on Sain John Rike his aghen men
Withouten swike his aghen bailiffs make ye fight
Nan over coroner have ye might,
Swa hert may think or eghe see."
Swa hert think or eghe see."
Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicae, Vol. 4, p. 130 (Edition of 1817),
and see p. 171. See also Birch Cartularium Saxonicum, Vol. II, p.
322. Poulson Beverlac, 39-149.
hundred should be amerced (w). If this be true there
must have been an office in the time of King Canute very
closely resembling that of coroner. But we cannot safely
rely on such authorities. The glaring inaccuracies of the
Mirror are universally known (0).
Sect 2. The institution, as we shall see later (/>),
is one more adapted to the Norman notions of the king's
peace and of feudalism than to the Saxon ideas of a free
people, courts leet and courts baron. In Saxon times the
power of royal judicature and pleas of the crown were not
sufficiently developed (q) to admit a place for such an
office.
Sect. 3. The period during which the office was in-
stituted would seem then to be limited to the time between
the Norman Conquest in 1066 and 1194. Modern scientific
investigators are almost unanimous in saying that the Arti-
cles in Eyre of 1194 are the earliest authentic mention of
coroners. They place the origin of the office at that date.
It is, however, respectfully submitted that it does not nec-
essarily follow that the first authentic mention should in-
dicate the foundation of the offices. Crabbe goes so far
as to say "they are first mentioned by name in this statute
(Magna Charter c. 17) although allusion is made to the
office in the capitula of Henry II and in those given in the
reign of Richard I to the justices in Eyre wherein they were
directed to choose three knights and one clerk in every county
to be custodes placitorum coronae (r}. Evidence as to
county coroners before 1194 rests on reputed statutes and
charters and on one reported case (s).
Sect. 4. In November 1194 Geoff ry Fitz Peter and
William de Stuttville two of the justices of the Curia regis
record a case before them at Westminister to the effect that
(n) Mirror, C I, Sect. 3.
(0) Mirror was probably written or edited by Home before 17
Edward II ; probably during the reign of Edward I.
(P) Post, Sect. ii.
(q) See Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls and Wel-
lington's The King's Coroner.
(r) History of the English Law (first American Edition) 150.
(s) Rotuli Curiae Regis, Vol. i, o. 50-51- See article of Charles
Gross, 7 Political Science Quarterly, 056 (1892).
10 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
Hugh de Scrverbi had accused Alured de Glentham as prin-
cipal and a certain Jordan as accessory to the killing of his
brother. Hugh stated that after the commission of the
crime the accused had been placed in custody of the bailiffs
of Gerard de Camville, sheriff of Lincolnshire. The coro-
ners (f) having been called to Westminister say that at the
first county court after the homicide, Hugh accused Jordan
as principal and Alured as accessory. The sheriff and men
of the County confirm the testimony of the coroners.
Gerard de Camville was sheriff of Lincolnshire from
1189 to 1194 with the exception of a few weeks in 1191
(). In March 1194 he was removed by Richard I and
serious accusations of treason were brought against him
(v), for he was an ardent supporter of John. It is not
likely therefore that Gerard was afterwards in office. It
seems more than probable that Hugh brought his accusation
before March 1194 and therefore before September 1194,
when the Articles in Eyre were issued. It is moreover pos-
sible that the case of Hugh v. Alured et al. was as early
as 1189 for both Geoff ry Fitz Peter and William de Stutt-
ville were itinerant justices at that time (w). Here then
is reasonable proof that whatever may have been the origin
of the coroners office, the articles in Eyre of 1194 are not.
Sect. 5. Though we cannot appeal to so succinct au-
thority to carry the office back of that time still we have
evidence which deserves grave consideration. In 1189 the
burgesses of Colchester received from Richard I a grant (x}
(f) Maitland strongly opposes the view that these were coroners
duly elected before the Articles in Eyre of 1194 (English Historical
Review, Vol. VITI, p. 758). They were called, he claims, as knights of
the shire, not as coroners. If that be the case we must necessarily ask
how was it that so short a time after the creation of the office in those
days of infinitely slow travel did the justices in Eyre find coroners in
Lincolnshire. Besides we must remember this case was tried before
it came up at Westminister. For a discussion of this question see
Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls XVIII.
(M) Hovenden, Vol. Ill, pp. XXIX, LVI, 134, 137; Foss's Judges,
Vol. II, p. 48. He was made sheriff by Richard, soon after the latter
came to the throne : Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners, Rolls
XVII.
(v) Hovenden, Vol. Ill, p. 241-43.
(/) Foss Judges, Vol. I, p. 335. Citing Pipe Roll 34, 35.
(x) Afterwards confirmed by Henry III, "Quod ipsi ponant de
seipsis ballivos quos cunique voluerient et justit (iarios) ad servandum
EARLY HISTORY OF CORONERS 11
of the right to appoint an officer who seems to have been a
coroner. In the reign of Henry III, they demanded the
privilege of appointing a coroner by concession of Richard
I, there can be little doubt that they had reference to the
grant of 1189 (y). In the thirteenth or fourteenth century
the citizens of Norwich claimed that they had appointed their
coroners since the reign of Stephen, but a hostile contempor-
ary chronicler denies that they had and asserts that Norwich
did not have this privilege "for a hundred years or more
after the Norman Conquest" (2). Jervis seems to believe
coroners existed long before 1 194 but he is not very adequate
as to what authority he has for his statements. He says they
were called "Serviens regis" (a) in the reign of Henry II.
In the reign of Richard I they were styled "custos placi-
torum coronae" (b), and in Magna Carta and subsequent
statutes "coronator" (c).
Sect. 6. "Mr. Round has recently called attention to
the existence of early justices of counties similar to those
of boroughs. In Henry I's time Ralph Passeleive was just-
arius of Norfolk, and 1141 the Empress Maud granted
to Geoffrey de Mandeville 'ut sit capitalis justic' a in Esse.va
* * * de placitis et forisfactis quare pertinnerint ad coram
mean? (d). Considerable obscurity overhangs the functions
of these justices, but is not improbable that they were the
predecessors of the latter county coroners. (?).
"Equally obscure is a passage in the Pipe Roll of Henry
I, p. 91. Under the heading 'Norfolk and Suffolk' a certain
placita coronae nostrae et ad placitiandum eadem placita infra burgutn
suutn" Madox Firma Burgi 28.
(y) There is a marked resemblance between this charter and Chap-
ter 20 of the Articles in Eyre of 1194, as also to the charters for munic-
ipal coroners granted by John.
(z) Monasticon Anglicanum, Vol. IV, p. 14. The narration is
taken from the register of Bingham. The same claim of the citizens
is entered in the civic records of Norwich, Archaeological Journal,
Vol. 46, p. 303. See Gross Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XV,
note 3.
(a) Jervis on Coroners 2, See Umfreville Lex Coronatoris, XX.
(fr) Jervis on Coroners 2, Wilkins Legis Anglo Saxonicae, 337.
(c) Jervis on Coroners 2, Wilkins Legis Anglo Saxonicae, 346.
(d) Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 92, no, 373 and see also Ibid
150, 167.
(?) Gross Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XVI.
12 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
Benjamin accounts for 4, 55., f ut custos diat placita qual
coronae regts pertinent' (/). Professor Maitland says:
'A Benjamin who has no surname looks uncommonly like a
Jew and perhaps the pleas that he wished "to keep" are
pleas concerning Jews.' If this interpretation is correct the
prevailing view regarding the origin of the exchequer of the
Jews will have to be modified. The language of the entry
seems to indicate that Benjamin was a coroner" (g).
Sect. 7. Henry I is supposed to have granted to the
citizens of London (h) the right to elect a " justitiarius" to
hold pleas of the Crown (*'). Professor Gross in speaking
of this Charter and the Charter of Richard I to Colchester
says: "Professor Maitland has raised certain objections to
my interpretation of the passages in the Charters of London
and Colchester (&). His opinion on this or any kindred sub-
ject is certainly worthy of careful consideration. 'The duty
of a coroner in after times' he says 'is custodire placita coro-
nae and no doubt servare is equivalent to custodire. But
then in these cases the same person is both to keep and to
hold pleas of the Crown * * * it seems necessary to insist
that from 1194 onwards we have in the coroner an officer
who while he is bound cu-stodire placita coronae is not en-
titled or at all events not empowered by the terms of his
appointment tenere (or placitare) placita coronae. Is it not
the very essence of the matter that in the coroners we have
persons whose duty it was to 'keep' pleas which other per-
sons are to 'hold'? What Professor Maitland here states
regarding the functions of the coroner is certainly true after
(/) Mr. Gross in his note to this passage says, "my attention was
first called to this reference in English Historical Review, Vol. VIII,
p. 709 c. f. Pollock & Maitland, History of English Law, Vol. I, p.
520." Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XVII.
(g) Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XVII.
(h) This charter also greatly resembles the charter of Richard
I to Colchester, the twentieth chapter of the Articles in Eyre of 1194
and the charters for municipal coroners granted during the reign of
John.
(t) "Justitiarium quemcunque vel qualem voluerint de seipsis ad
custodiendum placita coronae meae et eadem placitandum." Rymer
Foedera, Vol. I, p. n. Select Charters, 108. In Stephen's time Ger-
vase de Cornhill and Goeffrey de Mandeville held this office. Round's
Goeffrey de Mandeville, 453. Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners
Rolls, XV.
(k) English Historical Review, VIII, 758-60.
EARLY HISTORY OF CORONERS 13
the time of King John. But is it true of the twelfth century ?
The Great Charter of 1215 (ch. 24) (/) enacts that 'nullus
vicecomcs constabularins vel coronatores vel alii balivi nostri
teneant placita coronae meae.' Does not this imply that
before 1215, coroners not merely 'kept' but also 'held' pleas?
Moreover in dealing later on with the functions of the coro-
ner we shall see that traces of these higher judical duties ad-
here to the office in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
(m). The burgesses of Colchester in the reign of Henry III
were probably right in identifying their coroners with the
'Justices' whom they were allowed to have by Richard I's
charter" (n).
Sect. 8. We cannot with the limited facilities at hand
dispute what either of these learned writers says, much less
decide between them, but were we to take the position oc-
cupied by Professor Maitland we would be obliged to meet
the very awkward question, why does Magna Carta forbid
coroners to "hold" pleas of the Crown? It might be an-
swered that they had no right to "hold" such pleas and did
so without right ; that that was the grievance complained of
and corrected by the Great Charter. But the evidence be-
fore us seems to tend against such a view for we find in
the earlier charters some authorized to "keep" and others
to "hold" as well as to "keep." The most logical conclusion
is that those persons who were authorized to "hold" as well
as to "keep" pleas of the Crown were also coroners and that
coroners "held" pleas of the Crown of right.
Sect. 9. In the laws of Henry I we find a provision "de
rerum inventione" the "ostendatur tribtis partibus vincineti
(three villes} ut testimonium habeant de inventione" (o).
While this does not mention pleas of the Crown we cannot
help agreeing with Umfreville that it sounds like a coroner's
inquest. Moreover the same provision is found in the laws
of the Conquerer (/>).
(/) Evidently a mistake for Chapter 17.
(m) See Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, "Functions
of the Coroner," p. XXIV, et seq.
(n) Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XVI.
(o) Umfreville Lex Coronatoris XXVI Wilkins Legis Anglo Sax-
onicae, 220.
(p) Ibid.
14 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
In the laws of Edward the Confessor, we find the pro-
vision "Si quiipsiam murdratus alicubi reperiebatur quere-
batus apud villiam interfector illiiis" and that "super sacra-
vncntum" without naming the office or the officer (q). Here
again we are pointed to the duties of the coroner. Could
these authorities be thoroughly relied upon we could argue
from them that the office really existed under Edward the
Confessor and from his time on, with varying fortunes until
firmly established in 1194.
Sect. 10. Two grave difficulties confront us in attempt-
ing to reach such a conclusion and these must be surmounted
before any theory on the subject ca,n be given serious con-
sideration. In the first place the office is not mentioned by
Glanville (qq}. His silence is eloquent. We may say that
the office was not well established nor the duties clearly de-
fined at the time Glanville wrote. In his meagre account of
criminal procedure he may have had no occasion to refer
to coroners. "Even after 1194 such records as the Rotuli
Curvae Regis rarely mention (r) coroners during the reign
of Richard I (s). In the second place the printed Pipe
Rolls of 2-19 Henry II are silent on the subject of coroners.
This difficulty, however, may be met by the same argument.
The office is scarcely mentioned by them even after the fam-
ous article in Eyre.
Mr. Gross advances a theory (t) which may well be
quoted. He says: "As the jurisdiction of the Curia Regis
gradually increased and that of the local public courts dimin-
ished in the century following the Norman Conquest, the
king's peace was extended, the category of crown pleas was
enlarged (u) and new agents were therefore needed to see
that criminals were brought to trial before the itinerant
(q) Umfreville Lex Coronatoris, XXXI; Wilkins Legis Anglo
Saxonicae, 199, Chapter 15.
(qq) But Glanville scarcely mentions treasure trove which un-
doubtedly was of great importance at that time.
(r) How often do our State reports refer to them? There are
perhaps a dozen references to the office in 280 volumes.
(j) Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XVIII.
(0 Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XIX.
() Stubbs Constitutional History Sects. 72, 73, 128, 163. Bige-
low Procedure, 75-85. Pollock Oxford Lectures, 86. Maitland's Manor
Pleas, pp. LIII, LIV.
EARLY HISTORY OF CORONERS 15
justices. The coroner was in fact an important concomitant
in the Eyre system, the latter needed the active co-operation
of the former."
Both existed primarily for the king's profit (v), both
were useful adjuncts of a highly centralized government.
The development of the coroner's office may thus have been
contemporary with that of the itinerant justices, both offices
were perhaps tentatively employed under Henry I, fell into
abeyance under Stephen and were firmly established under
Henry II. Moreover, Henry II strove to curtail the author-
ity of the sheriffs (/). Some of their functions ultimately
passed to the coroners and the latter acted as a check on the
former (;r).
The rise of the office of coroner seems to imply a cor-
responding depression of that of sheriff, the establishment
of the new office may have been the result of Henry II's
policy of reducing the power of the sheriffs and centralizing
the administration of justice in the itinerant justices and the
Curia Regis. Whether this hypothesis is tenable or not it
is probable that chapter 20 of the Articles of 1 194 is merely
a declaratory act referring to an institution already in
existence.
Sect. ii. A theory might be advanced which would
satisfactorily explain the origin and rise of the office of
coroner. It might be argued that the office having as it does
much to do with pleas of the crown is closely connected with
the king's peace.
From early times there has been a coroner of the king's
household. It may have been that the coroner was at first
the officer who took cognizance of breaches of the peace
within the king's household. As the king's peace was ex-
tended coroners may have been appointed having jurisdic-
(v) The coroner was expected to seek diligently for the forfeited
chattels of felons, for deodands, wreck and treasure trove. See Brit-
ton, Liber I, p. XXXI, Statute 4 Edward I, 11-18, I Statutes of the
Realm 40, Abbreviatio Originaliam, Vol. I, p. 18; Placita de Quo War-
ranto, 114. In the Coroners Rolls less concern is often manifested to
bring the felon to justice than to secure his chattels for the King.
Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XXIV, et sea. and see
Ibid XIX.
(w) Stubbs Constitutional History, Sect. 163.
<.*) Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XXVI, et seq.
16 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
tion in certain places or towns specially favored by the king
with his peace until it was spread over the entire land, by
which time coroners had come to be appointed in every
county. But this does not accord with known facts. The
peace of the king had been extended to all England before
the Conquest (;y), while our best information seems to be
that the office of coroner was a purely Norman institution.
A more plausible theory seems to be that this office was
established for the very purpose it accomplished ; the gradual
sapping away of the power of the local public courts, and
the accumulation of their power in the hands of one of the
king's officers. This might indeed account for the presence
in the Great Charter of the chapter above mentioned for it
cannot but seem highly improbable that the English people
struggling with a tyranical king would have put into their
charter a provision limiting the powers of one of his officers
and therefore offensive to him if there had not been a great
abuse to be corrected and it seems equally unlikely that in
twenty-one years an office created in 1194 could have be-
come so offensive to the English people as to require such
summary redress.
Perhaps a people who had seen the power of their local
public courts gradually sapped away and one after another
of their duties and privileges accumulated into the hands
of kings "crowner" sought by this chapter to check the fur-
ther growth of the office.
Sect. 12. Whatever may have been the cause and earli-
est history of the office of coroner it was certainly in exist-
ence in 1194 (2). During the reign of John, several mu-
nicipal charters were granted, among others those to the
cinque ports, which included, among the privileges they
gave, the right to elect or appoint coroners, called in these
charters "custodes placitorum coronae" or "coronatores"
(a). The words were used interchangeably during the
period (6).
(y) Pollock's Oxford Lectures, pp. 65 to 90.
(2) Ante, Sect, i, note d.
(a) Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XVII.
(&) Selden's Pleas, 98.
EARLY HISTORY OF CORONERS 17
It is not to be doubted that at this time the coroner not
only received appeals (c) and made inquisitions, but that
he tried the criminals as well (rf). It is probable he received
appeals of any felony or mayhem on the plaintiff finding
sufficient pledges to the Sheriff to prosecute the appeal with
effect (e). As Hawkins says (/), "the books generally men-
tion the coroner as the person before whom such appeal
is to be commenced without joining any other with him;
from whence it seems clearly intimated that the coroner is
the only person who hath jurisdiction in this matter." He
might receive such an appeal without the concurrence of any
other officer (g). "Before Magna Carta" says Viner (h)
"the coroner had the following jurisdiction; (i) Inquisi-
tion in case of violent or untimely death, (2) abjurations
of outlawry, etc., (3) Appeals by bill, etc."
They probably abused their power. Nathaniel Bacon
tells of a case of a coroner who obtained a confession from
a prisoner by torture (').
Though chapter 17 of Magna Carta forbids them to
hold pleas of the crown (&) they seem to have held jury
trials in civil cases for some time afterwards (/). Hale tells
us (m) "By Magna Carta chapter 17 he cannot determine
(c) 2 Hawkins Pleas of the Crown, Chap. 9, Sect. 39, 2 Hale's
Pleas of the Crown, 67.
(rf) 2 Coke's Institutes, 30-31-32; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 56;
I Blacks tone's Commentaries, 347; Dalton on Sheriffs, c. 10.
(e) Bracton, 122-147; Fleta Lib, i c. 25; Britton 5; Staundeford's
Pleas of the Crown, 64, 22 Assize, 97-98. Finch 321-2, 4 Henry VI
folio 16. Brooke's Abridgment, appeal 44, contra 17 Assize 5. Brooke's
Abridgement, appeal 56, 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 52-64. Hale's
Summary 171. 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c. 9, Sect. 39.
(/) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c. 9, Sect. 39.
(g) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 67. Hale's Summary, 172. 2
Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 39.
(A) 6 Viners Abridgment, 243.
(') Bacon on Government, 55.
(k) See Bracton 147, Fleta Lib. i Chap. 25, 22 Assize 97-98, Brooks
Abridgment Appeal 56-62. Corone 82, 2 Coke's Institutes, 30-31-32;
a Hale's Pleas of the Crown 67.
(/) Bracton's Note Book II, 227-389-420-452-466-516-571-572-627-
675-682, III 151-155-228-264-473, Salt. Soc. IV 84-95-97; Dugdale's Mon-
asticon Anglicae, Vol. VI, p. 2, and see Article by Charles Gross 7
Political Science Quarterly 656. They either took the place of the
sheriff or more often sat with him. Gross's Introduction to Select
Coroners Rolls XXV, as to the coroner's Counter Roll see Post
Sect. 40.
(m) 2 Pleas of the Crown, 67.
18 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
the appeal, but he may still ( I ) record the non suit of the
plaintiff in an appeal by bill before him (n) ; (2) Award a
capias and alias to the sheriff and thereupon demand the de-
fendant at five counties and outlaw the defendant (0),
though Staundeford (/>) makes a doubt of this and thinks
the appeal must be removed by certiorari into the King's
Bench whence only process of outlawry can issue. But to
have the appeal before the coroner and sheriff (g) deter-
mined it must go to the King's Bench on certiorari."
Sect. 13. It is probable that at this time none but
knights were coroners (r). The Statute of Merton in 1235
(s) joins the words "Alius legalibus militibus" to "custodi-
bus placita coronae" () assuming that all coroners are
knights (u). It seems hardly probable, therefore, that Na-
thaniel Bacon is correct in his remark (v) that before the
Statute of Westminster I c 10 (w) the coroners were poor
and mean and maintained themselves by bribery and extor-
tion "and being found guilty had not sufficient to give re-
compense" (ww}.
We have seen that whensoever the office of coroner may
have had its rise it was well established at the time of
Magna Carta, so well that its functions were limited by that
Statute (AT). It is frequently spoken of during the reign
(n) 22 Assize 93, and see Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown cap.
Si-
(o) 22 Assize 97, and they also passed judgment on felons caught
in the act. Britton, Book I, 37-56. Salt. Soc., Vol. IV, 214 c. f. Year
Book 30-31 Edward I, 502. Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners
Rolls XXV.
(p) Pleas of the Crown Lib. II cap. 14 f. 64 a.
(q) See Post Sect. 37. Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown Lib.
II cap. 14,
(r) 2 Coke's Institutes 31, 176. Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown
48-49. 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c 9. Sects, i, 2, and 3.
(j) I Statutes of the Realm 40.
(0 Chapter 3, see Umfreville Lex Coronatoris XXIV.
() 23 Assize pi. 7. 2 Bacon's Abridgment title, Coroners (A)
note (a) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c 9 Sect. 3, Jervis on Cor-
oners, 10.
(v) Bacon on Government 179.
(w) I Statutes of the Realm 40.
(ww) But his view is supported by Staundeford, Pleas of the
Crown cap. 51 and Fleta Lib. i cap. 18.
(*) See Ante, Sect. 12.
EARLY HISTORY OF CORONERS 19
of Henry III (3;). Bracton mentions it in his treatise (2).
It would not, then, be suprising if we were to find about this
time a general statute on the subject and such is the case.
A discussion of the Statute of 4 Edward I. properly belongs
under another heading (a) and will be there found. For
the present let us observe that the office and duties which,
possibly, ever since the Norman Conquest had been develop-
ing, crystalized into Statute Law in 1276 (&). From that
time on the office and duties of coroners are the subject of
frequent decisions and statutory enactments, but yet the
office and its duties remain as we shall find out later (c)
much the same today as they were in 1276. From this
fact alone we might draw an inference strongly adverse
to the orthodox theory that the office was created by the
Articles in Eyre of 1194, scarcely one hundred years be-
fore.
(31) For the functions of coroners in the reigns of John and Henry
III, see Rotili Curiae Regis, Vol. I, pp. 51-418. Selden's Pleas 3-9-19-
29-33-45-63-70-84-88-100-117. Maitland's Gloucester Pleas 4-15-20-47-55-
78-94-116.
(*) See Post, Sects. 25, 27.
(a) Post, Sects. 25, 26, 27, 28.
(6) In Pollock and Maitland's History of the English Law, Vol.
II, p. 641, this "statute" is spoken of as "aprocryphal" for a discussion
of the authenticity of the statute, see Post, Sect. 26.
(f) Part II.
CHAPTER II.
DEFINITION AND DIFFERENT KINDS OF CORONERS IN
ENGLAND. THEIR JURISDICTION.
Sect. 14. The word "Coroner" is defined with typical
ingenuousness by a leading dictionary (a) as "a municipal
officer formerly charged with the interests of the private
property of the Crown but whose main function in modern
times is to hold inquests on the bodies of those who may
be supposed to have died violent deaths." He is some-
times spoken of as a principal conservator of the peace (&)
in every county. He is a very ancient (bb) officer (c) of
the Crown (d) coronator his name is derived from
corona (?) and "he is so called because he hath principally
to do with pleas of the Crown or such wherein the King is
more immediately concerned"' (/). Lord Coke says "he
is an officer of the Crown and has conusance of some pleas
which are called placita coronae" (g}. If by this he means
that the coroner may receive appeals (/) and that his in-
quisition may be used in place of an indictment it would
seem to be a stretch of the word "conusance." Surely we
would hardly say (without qualification) that a police mag-
istrate in Pennsylvania has conusance of murder cases.
The word conusance connotes more to our minds. Out-
lawry cases (t) can hardly be called pleas of the crown
though they may be considered such in a qualified sense. If,
(o) Century dictionary.
(fr) Britton Cap. i Sect. 14; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c 8,
Sect. 5; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 48-49.
(&&) 3 Bulstrode, 176.
(c) Staudeford's Pleas of the Crown 48-49, 2 Coke's Institutes
31; I Blackstone's Commentaries, 346; 4 Coke's Institutes, 271.
(d) 2 Coke's Institutes, 31; 4 Coke's Institutes, 271; Comyns Digest
title officer, p. i.
(e) 2 Coke's Institutes, 31.
(/) Register 172, Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 164; 2 Coke's In-
stitutes, 31 ; 4 Coke's Institutes, 271 ; i Blackstone's Commentaries,
346, and see 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c. 9, Sects, i, 2, and 3.
(g) 2 Coke's Institutes, 31.
(/) Post, Sect. 36.
(f) Post, Sect. 37.
(20)
KINDS OF CORONERS IN ENGLAND 21
on the other hand, the expression intends what was after-
wards stated by Chief Baron Comyns, Lord Coke is wrong.
The digester tells us on the authority of Lord Coke's remark
"the coroner is an ancient officer of the Crown whose duty
it is to hold pleas of the Crown" (). We have seen (/)
even in Lord Coke's time, a fortiori in Chief Baron Comyns,
the coroner had long since ceased to "hold" pleas of the
Crown (m). The coroner has also been defined as he who
"recorded all pleas of the Crown in the torn, all inquisitions
of felo de se and people coming to an untimely end and
likewise all outlawries and these coroners were in the nature
of comptrollers to the sheriff., keeping a record of the fines
and amercements in the sheriff's courts" (). Perhaps the
most concise definition we could give would be to say the
coroner is an officer of the Crown, charged with the duty to
investigate and record, certain matters relating to pleas of
the crown.
Sect 15. There were three kinds of coroners, viz. : ( I )
Virtute officii, (2) Virtute cartae sive commissionis ; (3)
Virtute electionis (0).
Sect. 1 6. The coroners virtute officii were the Chief
Justice of the Court of King's Bench and his associate jus-
tices. The Lord Chief Justice was by virtue of his office
Chief Coroner of all England (/>) He "may if he pleases
exercise the jurisdiction of a coroner in any part of the
realm" (q). The other justices of the King's Bench were
sovereign coroners (r). We may well imagine that the
office was exercised about as often as most of the duties of
offices held ex officio. This conjecture is borne out by the
(&) Commyns Digest Title Officer G. i, citing 2 Coke's Institutes
31, 4 Coke's Institutes 271.
(/) Ante, Sect. 12.
(m) For a definition of coroner today see Post, Sect. 66.
(n) Gilbert's Historical View of the Exchequer 80, see 6 Viner's
Abridgment 246-247.
(0) 2 Male's Pleas of the Crown 53, 2 Bacon's Abridgement 424,
(p) Sadler's Case, 4 Coke's Rep. 57b (1588) ; Berkley's case, 2
Siderfin 90, (1658); 4 Coke's Institutes, 73; 2 Kale's Pleas of the
Crown, 53 ; i Blackstone's Commentaries, 346.
(q) i Blackstone's Commentaries 346 even within the verge or
other franchise; Wrote v. Wigges, 4 Coke's Reports 46.
(r) 17 Edward 3, 13 a Lib. 4 fol. 57, 4 Coke's Institutes, 73 ; Sad-
ler's Case, 4 Coke's Reports 576 (1588), and see Coke's PI. Com. 262.
22 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
fact that there was a separate coroner especially for the
King's Bench (s). But on one occasion certainly the Chief
Justice of the King's Bench did act as coroner (t),
Finneaux, C. J. is supposed to have resolved "that if a
man be slain in open rebellion, the Chief Justice upon view
of the body may make a record thereof and send it into
the King's Bench, and thereupon the party slain shall for-
feit his lands and goods" "which may be true," says Lord
Hale (u), "as to the goods but not as to the lands because
none can be attained after death except by act of Parlia-
ment." Lord Coke is of opinion that the resolution is good
law. Matthew Bacon and Chief Justice Gibson agree
with Finneaux and Lord Coke, that the goods would be
forfeited and with Lord Hale that the lands would not be
forfeited (v) on the principle that a man killed in open
rebellion can under ordinary circumstances forfeit neither
lands nor goods because he cannot be attainted after death.
We cannot but feel that the logic of the situation is with
Lord Coke. It is difficult for us to understand the nice-
ties of the law of forfeiture, but it is still more difficult to
understand upon what ground the distinction rests between
the forfeiture of lands and of goods under the circum-
sstanecs. It is certain a felo de se forfeited both lands and
goods although he was dead. Granted the dead rebel can
make no defense of his alleged rebellion; that argument
applies with equal force to both lands and goods, and for
that matter neither can a felo de se defend his character,
though he has the inquest to do that (^r).
Sect. 17. Coroners virtute cartae s'we commissionis
were of four kinds (i) the coroner of the verge (2) the
(j) Rot. Parl. Vol. Ill, p. 482, Vol. VI, p. 337, who also had juris-
diction over all deaths in the King's Bench Prison.
(0 In the time of Henry VII cited 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown
53 in Sadler's Case, 4 Coke's Reports, 57!), (1588) in ex parte Schulz, 6
Wharton 272 (1841) and in Bacon's Abridgment Title Coroners fol. I,
and see 8 Edward III 38, 7 Henry IV 47, 2 Henry IV xob.
() 2 Pleas of the Crown 53.
(v) Bacon's Abridgment Title Coroners fol. i, ex parte Schultz, 6
Whart. 272 (1841).
O) Of this inalienable right to have it judicially determined
whether or not a man committeed suicide before he is subject to the
stigma of being felo de se, the local courts of Pennsylvania have robbed
KINDS OF CORONERS IN ENGLAND 23
coroner of the admiralty (3) other coroners appointed by
the King and (4) coroners of franchises. The two last
mentioned kinds may be considered as one group.
Sect. 1 8. From ancient times there has been a coroner
of the king's household (y). There was also a coroner
of the queen's household (2). The coroner of the king's
household was known as coroner of the verge, (a) he was
anciently appointed by the king's letters patent, but by the
statute of 33 Henry VIII, Chapter 12 (b) the appointment
was vested in the lord steward or the lord great master of
the king's house for the time being (c). Anciently he
had power to do all things relating to the office of coroner
within the verge exclusive of the coroner of the county
(d). He was also sometimes assigned to assay all weights
and measures according to the king's standards (e)
throughout the verge.
It may not be amiss here to explain the meaning of the
long since forgotten term "verge." The verge is a movable
jurisdiction of twelve miles (/) in radius from the place
where for the time being the king held his court. It will
be at once seen that the verge was a very indefinite thing.
If the king held his court in Westminster today there was
the verge; if tomorrow he should visit Kenilworth the
verge at once ceased to be at Westminster and went with him
to Kenilworth. The idea of the verge is closely allied to the
ideas of the king's peace and the sanctity of the king's
person. Wheresoever the king was, a certain sacredness
existed which, for example, made it treason to kill a man
in the king's presence. This sanctity spread like a halo
around the place where the king was. His personal pres-
ence caused great sanctity. His palace a less degree (//).
(y) Britton 23.
(z) 19 Irish Law Times 144.
(a) Wrote v. Wigges, 4 Coke's Reports 46 (1592).
(fr) 3 Statutes of the Realm 845 (1541).
(c) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 54.
(<0 Ibid,
(e) Britton 2a.
(/) By 13 Richard II, c 3, 2 Statutes of the Realm, 62 (1389).
(//) By 33 Henry VIII, c 12 Sect. 24. The coroner of the verge
has sole jurisdiction over deaths which occur in the King's Palace.
24 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
Within a radius of twelve miles from the place where
his court was held was protected by his majesty and was
called the verge.
Anciently the coroner of the verge had exclusive right
to do all things relating to his office within the verge () into the death and indict
the criminal. But there was danger in this slower method of
investigation, that the criminal might escape, for it must be
remembered that the coroner was a committing magis-
trate. By articuli super cartas (0) where the offence was
committed in the verge both the coroner of the verge and
the coroner of the county within which the offence was
committed "do their duty as belongeth to their office" (g).
It was still true that an inquisition taken in the king's
house by a coroner of the county where it was for the time
being, sitting alone, was void and would be discharged (r).
It was also true that an inquisition taken before the coroner
of the verge was void where the fact did not appear to
have been done in the verge and this was so even though
the county coroner joined (s). Hawkins says, it is coram
non judice (ss} as to the coroner of the verge and the rec-
ord being entire it cannot be void as to one and good as to
the other for "peradventure the jury was directed princi-
pally by the coroner of the king's house and the witnesses
examined and sworn by him" (f). If, therefore, the cor-
oner of the verge joins the fact "must be laid within the
verge" (u).
Such is the wording of the statute that it is doubtful
whether the coroner of the verge, alone, could hold an in-
quisition of a fact occurring within the verge. Lord Coke
tells us "if an offence be committed within the verge both
coroners must sit and if the coroner of the king's house
(/) 2 Hawkins Pleas of the Crown c 9. Sect. 15; Wrote v. Wigges,
4 Coke's Reports 473 (1592).
(q) 2 Coke's Institutes 550.
(r) Wrote v. Wigges, 4 Coke's Reports 46b (1592) ; Hamlin's Case
King's Bench 1610 Mss. see Borough & Holcroft's Case, 2 Leon. 160
(1579), and see Umfreville's Lex Caronatoris 150, 2 Kale's Pleas of
the Crown 54.
(s) 2 Coke's Institutes 550, Wrote v. Wigges. 4 Coke's Reports
47a (1592).
(ss) So does Coke, Wrote v. Wigges, 4 Coke's Reports 4;a (1592).
(0 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 16.
(M) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c 9, Sect. 16.
26 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
be absent the whole proceeding is void" (v}. But Haw-
kins says beyond doubt the coroner of the verge alone may
sit where one is slain within the verge (w). The conflict
may have arisen from Lord Hale's remark that if one be
slain within the palace the coroner of the verge may proceed
alone under the method that was there prescribed (#).
Even if this be true it does not follow that the same law
applies where the offence was committed within the verge
but without the palace for it must be remembered the pre-
cincts of the palace were more sacred than the verge gener-
ally.
Where the coroner of the verge and the coroner of the
county joined in the inquisition, it was said that if the
result could not be tried before the lord steward, process
should issue at common law (y). If the court removed, the
coroner of the county might go on with the inquest (z).
Accepting Hawkins' reasoning as to why the coroner of the
verge cannot take an inquisition of a fact committed without
the verge, above referred to, it seems hard to reconcile
the last proposition upon theory, though it is self-evident
that to hold otherwise would be to annul the articuli super
cartas. Peradventure the coroner of the verge did all the
examining and swore all the witnesses up to the time when
the court removed. To be sure it was not coram non
judice then, but once the court has removed the authority
of the coroner of the verge is gone and how can the au-
thority of a part of the court cease in the midst of the
cause and the cause go on? A more logical reading of
the statute would seem to be that both coroners were to
hold the inquest throughout jointly, the jurisdiction of the
county coroner being extended so as to permit him to enter
the verge qua coroner and that of the coroner of the verge
so as to permit him to act after the court was gone, but that
(v) 2 Coke's Institutes, 550; Wrote v. Wigges, 4 Coke's Reports
46 (1592).
(a/) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c 9, Sect. 18.
(x~) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 55, and see Statute 33 Henry
VIII Cap. 12, 3 Statutes of the Realm 485 (1541).
(y) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 54.
(*) Wrote v. Wigges, 4 Coke's Reports 4Sb, 463 (1592).
KINDS OF CORONERS IN ENGLAND 27
does not seem to have been the contemporaneous interpreta-
tion of the statute (a).
Under the old English system of government there
was nothing to prevent a man holding two offices so long as
they were not incompatible. The same man might be cor-
oner both of the verge and of the county (&). Text writers
agree that where the same man holds both offices he may sit
alone to hold an inquest upon a body killed within the verge
and may continue to hold the inquest even after the court has
removed (c). The dual capacity he holds brings him within
articidi super cartas for both the coroner of the verge and
the coroner of the county are sitting though in fact but one
man is sitting. In Wrote v. Wigges (d) where the point was
not necessary to the decision it was resolved that an inquest
taken before one man who held both offices was sufficient,
but when the point was directly before the King's Bench
in Borough & Holcroft ? s case (*) in 1579 it was not de-
cided "for" it was said "it is requisite that it be tried by two
coroners" and in reply "though there be but one person yet
there are two coroners."
As we shall see later (/) the coroner of the verge
returned his inquisitions before the lord high steward (#).
Sect. 19. The coroner of the admiralty was also a
coroner virtute cartae sive commissionis (H). He was ap-
pointed by the lord high admiral and had sole jurisdiction
on the high seas (i). The coroner of the county had no
jurisdiction of offences committed on the open seas or
between high and low water mark when the tide was in, but
(a) Wrote v. Wigges, 4 Coke's Reports, 45b (1592).
(&) An instance where this was done occurs in Wrote v. Wigges
supra.
(c) 3 Coke's Institutes, 134; 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 55;
Bacon's Abridgment Title Coroners (b) ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the
Crown c 9, Sect. 17.
() is enlightening
on this point; it enacts that "of death of man and may-
hem in great ships hovering in the main stream in great
rivers below the bridges near to the sea the admiral shall
have jurisdiction" (q). If this be a correct translation of the
() 3 Coke's Institutes 115, 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c 9
Sect. 14. Sir Henry Constable's Case, 5 Coke's Reports 107 (1601).
(/) 8 Edward II, Coron. 399.
(m) Leigh v. Burley, Owen 122 (1610) ; Anonymous, Moore 891-2;
2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 54; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown,
51; Hale's Summary 151.
(n) Fitzherbert's Abridgment Coroners, 399; 4 Coke's Institutes
140; 2 Rolle's Abridgment 179.
(0) Owen 122 (1610).
(/>) 2 Statutes of the Realm 78 (1391)-
(q) And see 8 Edward II, Coron., 399; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown
15-16-54.
KINDS OF CORONERS IN ENGLAND 29
statute Justice Cook was wrong when he said, the admiral
had no juridiction where one may see from side to side of
a stream. But the worthy justice has forestalled criticism
by saying (r) ; "The statute is misprinted, the admiral
does not have jurisdiction to the bridges; the words so
translated refer to points or land's ends" (rr). If this
be true and the admiral only has jurisdiction beyond the
"points" he has no jurisdiction in rivers at all and the stat-
ute is self -contradictory. Hale points out that the act only
applies to arms of the sea, not to mere creeks and to great
ships, not to small ones (s), and then escapes from the
principal difficulty by saying "on arms of the sea, within the
body of the county the admiral has jurisdiction, but not
exclusive jurisdiction"; nevertheless the coroner of the
county may take the inquisitions on the great rivers (f).
Rex v. Solgard (u) though a later case than the period
we are considering, throws a little light on this point. A
sailor on board one of his majesty's men-of-war in the har-
bor of Portsmounth hanged himself in his cabin. The coroner
of Hants being notified of the fact called at the ship to
take an inquisition. The captain, Solgard, refused to al-
low him to come on board of the ship. An information
was brought against Solgard and it was held that the ad-
miralty coroner would have had at best but concurrent jur-
isdiction had he been present; not being present, the jur-
isdiction of the county coronor attached when he came to
the ship to take the inquest; for public justice was at
stake. The court, however, did not fine and imprison the
captain but directed him not to obstruct the coroner. He
had acted in good faith under his interpretation of the law
(v) and he was an officer of the king.
In Atwood's case in the King's Bench in 1676 (/)
(r) Leigh v. Burley, Owen 122 (1610).
(rr) The Rotuli Parl. N. U. 30 says "pontz" old and corrupted
forms and abridgments read "pointes" or "portes."
(s) 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown 15-16-54-
(/) Ibid.
(M) Andrews 281 s. c. 2 Strange 1097 (1738).
(v) See Leigh v. Burley, Owen 122 (1610) ; Bracton 121, Fleta
Lib. i, 25.
(w) Mss. referred to in Umfreville's Lex. Coronotoris 144.
30 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
it appeared that Atwood, a broker, became financially in-
volved and suddenly disappeared. Some naval men picked
up his body in the Thames below St. Catharines. The ad-
miralty coroner held an inquest upon the body and the jury
found that the deceased had been drowned by accident.
Thereupon the body was buried. The coroner of an ad-
joining county requested the admiralty coroner to deliver up
the body to him that he might hold an inquest, but the ad-
miralty coroner refused. For this refusal the county coroner
brought a complaint to the King's Bench. Hale, C. J. up-
held the admiral's jurisdiction saying, that in great rivers he,
beyond doubt, had jurisdiction if he got the body first. Inti-
mating that had the county coroner first secured the body
the admiral would have been without jurisdiction. With
submission to authority the rule thus suggested seems wrong
on principle. The jurisdiction ought to be mutually ex-
clusive. Either the county coroner should have jurisdic-
tion or the coroner of the admiralty, but not both. It should
not be reduced to an indecent scramble to secure the dead
man's body.
The statute of Richard II, conferring jurisdiction on
the admiralty coroner to the bridges (x}> should it seems
exclude the jurisdiction of the county coroner. The two
decided cases are in perfect harmony with this theory for
in Rex v. Solgard (y} the county coroner was held to have
jurisdiction over a ship lying in Portsmouth harbor (2) and
in Atwood's case (a) where the jurisdiction of the admiralty
was upheld, the body was found below the bridges at St.
Catherine's.
But the authority against the exclusiveness of juris-
diction is so great that it may be taken as pretty well set-
tled that on great rivers and arms of the sea the coroner of
the admiralty has concurrent jurisdiction with the county
coroner (aa).
(*) If the words used do refer to bridges.
(y) Supra.
(2) Rex v. Solgard is a little hard to reconcile, Portsmouth Harbor
is of considerable size and not wholly land locked.
(a) Supra.
(ao) Staundeford presents an early idea of the statute saying
(Pleas of the Crown 50-51) that the jurisdiction is concurrent.
KINDS OF CORONERS IN ENGLAND 31
The coroner of the admiralty returned inquisitions
taken before him to the commissioners in admiralty (&).
The coroner of the admiralty by virtue of his letters
patent might appoint deputies (c) and it is to be noted he
usually acted by deputy.
Sect. 20. "Ordinarily" says Lord Hale (). In the fifty-first year of Edward III (q) and
again in the first year of Richard II (r) the commons of
London complained to the king of their grievances in this
regard, saying public justice was neglected and the office
made the means of private gain (s) but the king refused
to redress them, claiming his ancient rights in the matter.
But in 1478 they were granted the right to elect a coroner
distinct from the Chief Butler's coroner (f).
Sect. 22. It is to be noted in this connection that this
kind of coroner (tt) had no right to delegate his authority
(w) even though he claimed the right by prescription (v).
Their inquisitions were void unless they styled themselves
"coroner" therein (w).
Sect. 23. Coroners virtute electionis were those who
by the statute of Westminster I, chapter 10 (;r) and the
(n) Reiley's Memorials 3, Lofties London 29, Falling's Laws of
London 19-128.
(0) Reiley's Memorials 47-55-149-169-183, etc. Liber Albus 86-96
Liber Cust. 239-246. The same person was both Mayor and Chamber-
lain in 4-6 Edward I, Reiley's Memorials 3-17 Liber Cust. 239-291, and
John de Wengrave in 10 and n Edward II was both Mayor and
Coroner (or sub-coroner) Liber Cust. 245-6.
(/) Liber Cust. 296.
() 1376.
(r) 1377-
(s ) Graft evidently is no new disease.
(/) For a history of these struggles of London see Gross's Intro-
duction to Select Coroners Rolls, XXIII.
(tt) Coroners virtute cartae sive commissionis.
(u) Jervis on Coroners 5-6, Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 51;
except the admiralty coroner, who by virtue of his letters patent ap-
pointed deputies, 2 Burn's Justices 29 (Edition of 1845).
(v ) Jervis on Coroners 5-6.
(/) 22 Edward IV f 12.
(x) i Statutes of the Realm 40 (1275), see 2 Coke's Institutes, 174;
2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 55; Bacon's Abridgment Tit. Coroners
Pi. 3-
KINDS OF CORONERS IN ENGLAND 33
statute of 28 Edward III, chapter 6 (y) were eligible by
the county (yy) in the full county court (2} by virtue of
the King's writ de coronatore eligendo (sz} and sworn by
the sheriff to the due execution of their office (a). There
were usually four such coroners in each county (&), but
sometimes there were six and sometimes less than four (c}.
The number of coroners belonging in any county was really
indeterminate for the chancery might at any time issue a
writ de coronatore eligendo to elect an additional coroner
I*)'.
Professor Gross tells us (e) that during the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries there were four coroners in every
county (/). Each of them was assisted by a deputy (cler-
cus) who sometimes held the inquests (#). They seem usu-
ally to have been elected for the county at large, there being
(y) i Statutes of the Realm 346 (1354), Bacon's Abridgment Tit.
Coroners pi. 3, and see Post, Sect. 29, note (c).
(yy) Britton 2a.
(2) Britton 2a, 28 Edward III c 6, I Statutes of the Realm 346
(1354), see Post. Sect. 29, note (c).
(zz) Post, Sect. 29.
(a) F. N. B. 163; 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 55; Britton Chapt.
I, Sect. 4,
(&) Pleas of Gloucester 97, Rot. Claus, Vol. I, pp. 402, 622, 648.
Northumberland Rolls, 372;, Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 163 L; 4
Coke's Institutes, 271 ; i Blackstone's Commentaries 346.
(c) Northumberland Rolls 68, where there were three. Two are
mentioned Rot. Claus, Vol. II, p. 67; Devon Abb. Placit, 55. Generally
it might be said in Wales there were two, in England generally four
in the counties palatine in the north of England, six. By the Statute
of 34 and 35 Henry VIII, cap. 26 in Wales and Chester there were
two coroners, 4 Coke's Institute, 271 ; Huntingdon, little as it is, has
five coroners (Chalmers Local Government 96) ; Dorsetshire has
eleven (speech of Lord F. Harvey 1876; Hansard, Vol. 230, p. 1301 cited
in Chalmers Local Government, p. 96).
(rf) Jervis on Coroners 6 and 7.
(*) Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XX.
(/) PI. of Gl. 97 Rot. Claus. Vol. I, 402-622-648 cf. ibid; 463-506;
II, 91-105-119-126; Bracton II, 430; Salt. Soc. IV, 73-208-215; V, 121;
VI, Pt. i, 256, XII, 170 Northumb. Rolls, 372. Cf. ibid, 68 where only
three coroners are mentioned. In some cases there were only two
Rot. Claus. II, 67 Devon Abb. Placit, 55, Leicester cf. Bracton II, 430.
(g) The "Clercus" referred to in the articles of 1194, Sel. Char.
260 was probably an ecclesiastic who acted as clerk or scribe. Deputies
or clerci are often mentioned under Henry III and his successors
Bracton II, 588; Britton i 54, Fleta fol. 20, Rot. Hund. i, 3, 112, 130 Plac.
Quo. War. 309, 421 ; Salt. Soc. IV, 215, VI, PT. i 257, Britton 1-7 says
that it was unlawful for the coroner to substitute another in his place,
cf. Statutes i 211.
34 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
no division of the county into coroners' districts (h}, "cor-
oners of certain hundreds ridings and rapes are, however,
occasionally mentioned" (i).
The writ of election and its effect and execution will
be discussed in another chapter (&) The duties, rights,
privileges and liabilities of these coroners will also be con-
sidered later on (/). Looking at the subject of coroners
generally it may be taken for granted that the discussion ap-
plies to all coroners. Wherever there is a difference between
the duties of any particular kind of coroner and those of
the others that fact will be noted.
Sect. 24. It has been said that coroners virtute elec-
tionis were officers of the king; it is to be noted, however,
that they were elected by their county (w). They derived
their authority by virtue of their election, not by virtue of the
king's commission, and therefore their office did not de-
termine on the demise of the king (n) as does that of the
sheriff. Their jurisdiction was limited to the county for
which they were elected (0). The incomplete ideas of our
forefathers did not extend beyond the idea, for example,
that if a man be murdered, the murder must take place at
some spot. Therefore, the place where the murder was done
necessarily being within the jurisdiction of some coroner,
the coroner of the place where the murder was committed
should take cognizance of the offence. But of course the
question arose early as to who had jurisdiction where the
stroke was given in one county and the man died in another.
It was doubtful whether the coroner of either county could
(/) For example the coroners of Bedfordshire served in various
hundreds, pp. 1-38; in Henry Ill's time Adam Baret was coroner "per
totam comitatum," Northumb. Rolls, 68.
(t) Sel. Cor. Rolls III, Rot. Hund. i, 75-371, 386 II 207 Memorials
of Rippn. I 56 Roll 64 Mem. 14 Rotulus Willelmy Skillet Coronatoris
domini rcgis in partibus Holland.
(fc) Chapter IV, Sect. 29.
(/) Chapter V.
(m) See Post, Sect. 29.
(n) 2 Coke's Institutes, 175; 4 Coke's Institutes, 271; 2 Kale's
Pleas of the Crown, 55 ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c 9, Sect. 5 ;
Tombes v. Etherington i Levinz. 120 (1663) ; Resolutions at Ser-
geants Inn; Dyer 165 (1558) and Post, Sect. 29, note (x) contra
Staundeford c 51.
(o) Jervis on Coroners 66, see Mirror capt, 13 of Liber I.
KINDS OF CORONERS IN ENGLAND 35
be said to have jurisdiction, for no murder was committed
in the county where the stroke was given, for it lacked the
essential element of death. No man died of the stroke in
that county; but whereas a man died in the other county it
was no murder there, for he did not die of a wound given
in that county. Yet one case is reported (/>) wherein a
man was wounded in Bedford and went to Huntingdon and
died there; the respective coroners held inquests in both
counties.
A careful consideration of the true function of the
coroner's office (q) leads almost inevitably to the conclusion
that no such conflict should ever have existed. The cor-
oners duty being to inquire into the surrounding circum-
stances where one is found suddenly dead it seems clear on
principle that the coroner of the county where a man is
found dead had jurisdiction to inquire (qq}. But while
this may seem clear from the viewpoint of the twentieth
century it might have been by no means as clear when the
office of coroner was emerging from its ancient function of
judge. The necessity was then apparent that the judge
should have jurisdiction of the crime and that unless the
whole crime was committed in his county he could have no
jurisdiction at all for no part of the crime could be consid-
ered the crime itself (r}. Besides it is to be remembered that
the inquisition was an indictment and must therefore lay
a crime in some county. To escape these difficulties it was
considered necessary to remove the body into the county
where the deceased was hurt (s). It is doubtful, however,
if this was ever actually done. It is difficult to see more-
over how such a move helped matters. The presence of
the body did not remove the fact that the man died out-
side of the county. Besides no offence was perpetrated in
the county where the stroke was given and coroners had
(/) Selden Society II.
(q) See Post, Chapt. V.
(qq) The old idea seems to overlook the true question involved and
to confuse the duty of the coroner to inquire into sudden deaths with
his duty to record the indictment of the murdered if the jury found a
murder had been committed.
(r) Jervis on Coroners, 39; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 66.
(s) 6 Henry VII ica, and see 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 66.
36 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
jurisdiction only of offences committed within their re-
spective counties (*) It required a statute to clear the
matter of doubt. The act of 2 and 3 Edward VI, chapter
24, Sect. 2 (w) provided that where a man was stricken in
one county and died in another the culprit should be in-
dicted and tried in the county where the victim died (v).
While this act does not cover cases of misadventure it
was intended to cover the whole ground where the deceased
was feloniously destroyed. It does not cover the case where
one is stricken or poisoned on the high seas and dies on
land. Under such circumstances it was probably always
doubtful whether either coroner could be said to have jur-
isdiction (w). Moreover, as already remarked, the act
has no application to cases of misadventure, so that where
a man was so hurt in one county and died in another there
could be no inquest (.*).
Of course viewing the office of coroner in the ancient
light there was no doubt but that if a man was killed in the
county of A and his body removed to the county of B it
should be taken back to the county of A (3;), where alone the
inquest must be held. This strangely enough leaves the
coroner of the county where the body is found wholly with-
out jurisdiction. In this connection it is worth while to
refer to the recent case of Pickett v. Erie County, 19 W.
N. C. 60 (1883) as a strange contrast to this ancient rule
M-
(0 See supra.
(u) 4 Statutes of the Realm, page 69 (1548).
(v) See 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 66.
(;) Jervis on Coroners 39.
(*) 4 Justices of the Peace (English) 519-536.
(y) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 66.
(2) For a fuller discussion of Pickett v. Erie County and its re-
lation to the old rule see Post, Sect. 70.
CHAPTER III.
THE STATUTE DE OFFICIO CORONATORE.
Sect. 25. Perhaps we have gone too far into the dif-
ferent kinds of coroners without some explanation of their
duties and functions. It is difficult, however, to take the
subject up from any point of view without meeting con-
tinual references to other parts, which, to follow out, would
make the discussion of the subject illogical as the Thous-
and-and-one Nights. We are now arrived at the point, how-
ever, where it is no digression to consider the duties, func-
tions and liabilities of the coroner. We have already seen
the rise and traced the development of the office to the
beginning of the reign of Edward I, or the close of the reign
of Henry III (a). At this point our history takes on a very
definite shape. Two documents present themselves for our
consideration, both dealing with coroners in the most mi-
nute way. The first of these is Bracton's treatise, the second
the so-called statute de officio coronatore.
Sect. 26. Before taking up the consideration of these
two important authorities it would be well to look for a
moment at the statute of Westminster I, chapter ten (&).
That statute enacts :
"And for as much as mean persons and indiscreet
now of late are commonly chosen to the office of coroners,
where it is requisite that persons, honest, lawful and wise
should occupy such office. It is provided that among all
shires sufficient men shall be chosen to be coroners of the
most wise and discreet knights, which know, will and may
best attend upon such offices and which lawfully shall at-
tach and present Pleas of the Crown and that sheriffs shall
have counter rolls with the coroners as well of Appeals as
of Enquests, of attachments or of other things, which to
that office belong and that no coroner demand nor take
anything of any men to do his office upon pain of great
(a) See ante, Sects. I and 13.
(&) 2 Statutes of the Realm 40 (1275).
(37)
38 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
forfeiture to the king" (c). There is not the least doubt
that this statute is authentic, but its provisions are meagre
to say the least. Perhaps these most loyal knights were
wise enough to desire some instructions as to how their
office was to be executed. Bracton's treatise may have
been then in circulation, but it does not seem probable it
was in very general circulation; besides it was written in
Latin, which few at that time could read. Perhaps it was
felt that there was a need for the issuance of instructions
to coroners throughout the realm. Whatever was the case,
it is highly probable that in the following year the royal
government issued instructions to coroners.
When we read these instructions in connection with
Bracton's treatise we find the two almost identical. The
instructions are almost a transcript from Bracton (d).
The only things considered in the instructions omitted from
Bracton are the valuation of wrecks and the duty to follow
the hue and cry both of which are taken from the statute
of Westminster I (d). It is not surprising, therefore, that
Professor Gross should say that the so-called statute of
fourth Edward I is supposed to be a transcript from Brac-
ton, slightly altered (e). The instructions were, however,
printed as the statute of fourth Edward I in the last edi-
tion of statutes of the realm (/). It is, therefore, necessary
that we should be very careful in attacking their authen-
ticity.
Sect. 27. Some authors are of the opinion that Brac-
ton copied his treatise from the statute. Were this a
plausible theory it would reconcile the mind to the verbal
identity of the two instruments. But as masses were said
for the soul of one Henricus de Bracton (/) during the
reign of Henry III, it is probable that they were for the
great lawyer who had died before Edward I came to the
throne. It seems likely, therefore, if any copying was done
(c) Statute of Westminster I (3 Edward I) c 10, see 2 Hale's P.
C. 58. This is said by Lord Coke to be in affirmance of the Common
Law 2 Institutes 176-210.
(d) i Stephens Criminal Law 217.
(e) Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XXV and notes.
(/) Sir Travis Twiss Introduction to Brancton LXI.
THE STATUTE DE OFFICIO CORONATORE 39
it was the so-called statute which was copied from the
treatise. The most important evidence upon the subject
is the fact that neither Fleta nor Britton speak of "de officio
coronatore" nor is it mentioned by later statutes. It seems
impossible therefore to escape the conclusion of Sir Travis
Twiss in his introduction to the second volume of Bracton.
He says he is disposed to agree with the Hon. Daines Bar-
rington in regarding the document "de officio coronatore"
as a body of instructions for coroners and not properly
speaking a constitution. "It is not unlikely that the instruc-
tions were drawn up in pursuance of the statute of West-
minster the first chapter ten (3 Edward I)" (#). Even if
this be the case the statute (/i) is no less instructive as to
coroners.
It provides: "These things are to be inquired by the
coroners of the lord the king. First, when the coroners
of the lord the king have a command from the king's
bailiffs, (t) or from the good men of the country, to go
where any are slain or suddenly dead (&) or wounded,
or where houses are broken (/)or to a place where it is
said that treasure is found (m) they ought forthwith to go,
and to command four of the next towns (n) or five, or six,
to be before them in such a place; and when they shall be
come thither, the coroners ought upon the oath (0) of them
to make inquiry in this manner, to wit, if it be of a person
slain, (/>) it is first to be inquired where he was slain; to
wit, whether it were in a field, or in a house or at any
wrestling, or at a tavern, or in any company, and whether
any and who were there. In like manner, it is to be in-
(g) p. LXI. They were first printed as a part of the Statute of 3
Edward I, Chapter 10.
(h) In view of the fact that the instructions are printed in the
last edition of Statutes of the Realm they may properly be called a
statute.
(') The coroner must be sent for. It is no part of his duty to
interfere unless requested, see Post, Sect. 34.
(k) As to the meaning of this clause see Post, Sect. 47, and Part
II. Chapter VI.
(/) See Post, Sect. 35.
(n) These composed the jury, and the witnesses, too, see Post,
Sects., 50-51-52.
(o) See Post, Sects, 50-51-52-53-
(/>) See Post, Sect. 48.
40 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
quired whether any and what persons are culpable either of
the fact or of the force, and who were present, men or women
of what age soever they be so that they can speak and have
any discretion. And how many soever shall be culpable by
inquisition in any of the manners aforesaid, shall be taken
and delivered to the sheriff and committed to jail (#). And
such as be found who are not culpable, shall be at-
tached until the coming of the justices (r), and the names
of all of them shall be written in the coroner's rolls (s).
But if any such man be slain in the fields, or in the woods,
and be found there, it is first to be seen whether he were
slain there or not; if he were brought thither, let them
trace the steps, if he possibly can, of those who brought
the body thither, whether horses brought it or a cart, if
perchance it were brought by horse or Cart. Let it be in-
quired also whether the person slain were known, or were
a stranger and where he lodged the night before. But if
any such be slain, of whose murder any be found culpable,
let the coroners immediately go to their houses, and inquire
what chattels, they have (f) and what corn they have in
their grange; and if he be a freeman, what land he hath and
what is the annual value of it, and what corn he hath in
the ground, and when they have thus inquired of every-
thing, they shall cause the land, corn, and chattels to be ap-
praised, as if they were to be immediately sold, and they
shall be delivered to the whole township to answer before
the justice for the same; in like manner of the freehold, how
much it is worth yearly over and above the service due to
the lords of the fee, and let the land remain in the hands of
the lord the king until the lords of the fee shall have made
fine for it. These things being inquired, the bodies of the
persons dead or slain shall be forthwith buried (z/).
"In like manner it is to be inquired of them that are
(9) The coroner was a committing magistrate, Post, Sect. 42.
(r) All witnesses and the first finders were to be attached to the
coming of the justices, Post, Sects., 34-40-42. Fleta Lib. I Cap. 25, Sec.
4-
(s) As to the Coroners Rolls, see Vol. 9 of Selden Society Series
"Select Coroners Rolls" and see Post, Sects. 39-40.
(!) See Post, Sect. 55.
(v) See Post, Chapter VI.
THE STATUTE DE OFFICIO CORONATORE 41
drowned or suddenly dead; and afterwards it is to be seen
of such bodies, whether the persons were so drowned or
slain or strangled, by the mark on the neck, or by a mark
on any of the limbs, or by any hurt found on
the body; and so they are to proceed in form
aforesaid; if they were not slain, then ought the coroner to
attach the finders and all others in company. Of treasure-
trove, the coroner ought to inquire who are the finders (w),
and in like manner who are suspected thereof and this
may be well perceived, where one usually haunteth taverns,
and hath done so of long time, on such a suspicion he ought
to be attached by four or six pledges, or by more, if he
can find them. Further, if any be appealed (x) of rape,
he must be attached, if the appeal be fresh, and if they see
sign of truth by effusion of blood, of cry (y) raised; and
such must be attached by four or six pledges if they can
be found; but if the appeal were without cry, and without
any manifest sign, then two pledges are sufficient. Upon
appeal of wound and such like, if the wound be mortal, the
appellee shall be taken immediately, and kept until it be
known whether the party hurt shall recover or not, and if
he die, the guilty persons shall be kept; but if he recover,
they shall be attached by four or six pledges according as
the wound shall be. And for a maim, they shall be attached
by more than four; and for a simple wound without a
maim two pledges are sufficient. Also of all wounds it must
be seen what is the length, breadth and depth, and with
what weapons the person was wounded (2), and in what
part of the body ; and whether many are guilty thereof, and
whether there are many wounds, and who gave them and
what sort of wounds; and so ought all things to be enrolled
in the coroner's roll. But if any be appealed, he who is
appealed of the fact shall be taken; and those appealed of
the force shall be safely attached, until the appellee of the
(a/) Post, Sect. 34.
(*) Post. Sect. 38. This proposition is quite different from having
an inquest of rape, see Britton 3a.
(y) Wherever a rape was committed it was the duty of the in-
jured party to raise the hue and cry.
(*) This sounds like an inquest of mayhem, but it undoubtedly re-
fers to appeals.
42 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
fact shall be convicted. Concerning horses, boats, carts
whereby any one is killed (a) which are properly called
vari, they shall be appraised and delivered to the towns."
"Concerning wreck of the sea (b) wheresoever it be
found, if any one lay hands upon it, he shall be attached
by good and safe pledges and the prices of the wreck shall
be valued, and delivered to the towns. But if one be ac-
cused of the death of any one, he shall be taken and impris-
oned as above. In like manner of all homicides and bur-
glaries, hue shall be levied, as elsewhere is used in England.
And all shall follow the hue and cry, if they can do so, and
they who shall not, and shall be thereupon convicted that
they would not, shall be attached to be before the justices"
(O-
Bracton's treatise is so identically similar that it would
be a waste of time to quote it at length. It is evident, there-
fore, that the statute is wholly directory and in affirmance
of the common law (d). It "doth neither restrain the cor-
oner from any branch of his power nor excuse him from the
execution of any part of his duty not mentioned in it,
which was incident to his office before" (e). Therefore,
since it was his duty before the statute, it is still his duty to
hold inquests upon the bodies of all who die in prison (/).
Sect. 28. The provisions of the act are very rigorous
as to the seizure of the goods of those suspected or accused
of felony, before the inquest. These provisions were re-
pealed by the statute of first Richard III, chapter 3 (g).
(a) And which were therefore deodand, see Post, Sect. 55.
(&) This seems at variance with the view expressed by Professor
Gross, supra, Sect. 26, note c.
(c) I Statutes of the Realm 40 (1275), see Bacon's Abridgment
Title Coroners, 6 Viner's Abridgment 248.
(d) Bacon's Abridgment Title Coroners, 6 Viner's Abridgment 248;
Fitzherbert's Abridgment Coroners 421; 2 Coke's Institutes 176-210; 3
Coke's Institutes 52-91 ; Brooke's Abridgement 168. Staundeford's Pleas
of the Crown 51 ; i Hale's Pleas of the Crown 432 ; 2 Hale's Pleas of the
Crown 57 ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c 9, Sect. 2 ; I East's Pleas
of the Crown 381 ; Bacon on Government 179.
(f) Fitzherbert's Abridgment Coroners 421 ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of
the Crown c 9, Sect. 21 ; Bacon's Abridgment Title Coroners.
(/) Fleta Lib. I, Cap. 26, Sect. 5; Bacon's Abridgment Title Cor-
oners, 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, Chapter 9, Sect. 21.
(g) 2 Statutes of the Realm 478 (1483), see Jervis on Coroners 33,
234-
THE STATUTE DE OFFICIO CORONATORE 43
That Statute enacts :
"That no sheriff, under sheriff nor escheator, bailiff of
franchise or any other person shall take or seize the goods
of a person arrested or imprisoned for suspicion of felony
before that the same person so arrested or imprisoned be
convicted or attainted of such felony according to the law, or
else the same goods be otherwise lawfully forfeited upon
pain to forfeit double the value of the goods so taken, to
him that is hurt in that behalf by action of debt."
Having now taken a general view of the office and du-
ties of coroners, let us proceed to a more careful
consideration of their election, qualifications, functions,
rights, duties, privileges and liabilities.
CHAPTER IV.
THE ELECTION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF CORONERS.
Sect. 29. The Statute of Westminster I provides as
we have seen (a) that in all shires coroners shall be chosen.
It is to be presumed therefore, as the statute is in affirm-
ance of the common law (6), that it means they are to be
elected. In articuli super cartas (c) the right of electing
coroners is confirmed to the counties saving, however, the
rights of the king and other lords "who ought to make
coroners within their seignories and franchises" (rf). The
statute provides that the coroner shall be chosen by the full
county in the county court assembled (e), by the commons.
The coroner was to be chosen by the commons and not
by the freeholders. Hawkins assures us (/) that as the
statute was only in affirmance of the common law and as at
common law, none but freeholders could vote in the county
court, it is beyond doubt that only the freeholders could
vote for coroner (g). Blackstone says: (/) "He is still
chosen by all the freeholders in the county court as by the
(a) Ante, Sect. 26.
(fr) Ante, Sect. 23, note (x) ; Staundeford affirms that prior to the
statute poor men were chosen, Pleas of the Crown cap. 51.
(c) 28 Edward III, c 6 (1354) ; I Statutes of the Realm 346, see 2
Coke's Institutes 558, and see ante, Sect. 23, note (y) ; Hawkins says
this act reads as follows: "That all coroners of the counties shall be
chosen in the full counties by the commons of the same counties of
the most meet and lawful people that shall be found in the same
counties to execute the said offices saving always to the King and other
Lords who ought to make such coroners in their siegnories and fran-
chises" and adds "none but freeholders had votes F. N. B. 164, S. P. C.
49. For none but such are suitors to the county court 2 Inst. 99"; 2
Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 10.
(d) Britton, Chapter i, Sect. 4; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown,
Chapter 51 ; Blackstone says this was in order more surely to effect the
preservation of the people's rights against prerogative, i Commentaries
347-
(*) Britton, Chapter i, Sect. 4, and see Fleta Lib. II, c 18, Sect. I.
(/) 2 Pleas of the Crown c 9, Sects. 9 and 10.
(0) See Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown 49 and Anonymous 3
Atkyns 184 (1744).
(A) i Commentaries 347, citing 2 Coke's Institute 558 and Fitz-
herbert Natura Brevium 163, and see Staundeford's Pleas of the
Crown, cap. 51.
(44)
ELECTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF CORONERS 45
policy of our ancient law the sheriffs and conservators of
the peace and all other officers were who were concerned
in matters that affected the liberty of the people as vender-
ors of the forest still are, whose business it is to stand be-
tween prerogative and the subject in the execution of the
forest laws."
On the death or removal of a coroner (i) there is a writ
at common law de coronatore eligendo in which it is ex-
pressly commanded the sheriff "quod talem eligi faciat qui
melius et sciat et velit et possit officio ille intendere" (k).
This writ proceeded out of Chancery directed to the sheriff
(m). The writ was usually in the following form ().
Rex Vic. &c. Quia L. nuper unus coronatorium nostr' in
com' tuo diem clausit extrenum ut acccptimus. Tibi prae-
cipimus quod Si it a est tune in pleno com 3 tuo de assensu
ejusdem com' loco ipsius L. eligi fac' unum alium corona,-
torem juxta formam statui inde edit & provisi qui praestito
sacrament' prout moris est, extunc ea fac' & conservet quae
ad officium coronatoris pertinent in com' praedict & talem
eum eligi fac' quo melius sciat & possit officio illi intendere
& nomen ejus nobis scire fac'.
TESTE.
The election was upon view or by poll as of knights
of parliament (o) or verderors (/>). The sheriff then cer-
tified the election back to chancery (q). The coroner is
(i) Register 177, Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium 163, K., Comyns
Digest Title Office G. 3.
(k) See supra, note (h).
(w) Bacon's Abridgment Title Coroners (A). ,
(n) The form here given is that in Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium
p. 163, for a similar form see Bacon's Abridgment Title Coroners (A) ;
see Jervis on Coroners 13 and 14.
(0) In early times in Pennsylvania coroners were chosen in the
same manner as members of the General Assembly.
(/>) Comyns Digest Title Officer G. 3.
(g) Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium 163 K. ; Staundeford's Pleas of
the Crown cap. 51, Comyns Digest Title Officer G. 3. For a modern
account of an election of a coroner see Salop's Case 3 Swanston 181.
For the mode of election oath see Selden Coroners Rolls, 32, 99, 105 ;
Rot. Claus., Vol. I, pp. 366, 368, 402, 409, 414, 419 (bis), 463, 506, 560,
622, 648, Vol. II, 69-91-105-119-121-126; Cooper Records, Vol. I, 121;
Britton, Book I, page 8; I Statutes of the Realm, 346; Rot. Parl., Vol.
II, p. 260; in a few cases the King seems to have appointed the cor-
oner; Selden's Coroners Rolls, 91 Rot. Claus., Vol. I, p. 560.
46 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
elected for the county at large (r) and is chosen for life (j).
In the close rolls the new elections are often said to be due
to death, illness, inefficiency or insufficient qualifications
(t). Elected he is to be sworn by the sheriff (u) that "he
will lawfully do what belongeth to the office of coroner"
(v). But though the coroner is elected by virtue of the
king's writ and his election would be void otherwise he
draws his authority from the election and not from the
king (71') and not being created by commission, he retains
his office when the king dies (.r).
Sect. 30. WHile the freeholders had the privilege of
electing their coroner their choice was originally a limited
one. Everybody was not eligible to the office. "In ancient
times" says Coke (y) "they were knights, honest, loyall
(sic) and sage." The Statute of Merton assumes that all
coroners are knights (2) and that of Westminster I, spe-
cifically directs that they shall be (a). It was held sufficient
(r) The county was not divided into coroners districts, ante, Sect.
23, note (h). See Wrote v. Wigges, 4 Coke's Reports 466 (1592), and
see Comyn's Digest Title Officer G.
( j) Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XX ; I Black-
stone's Commentaries 348.
(0 See also Northumberland Rolls, 68; Eyton, Shropshire, Vol.
IV, p. 118.
() 14 Edward III c. 8 (1340) ; i Statutes of the Realm 283, Fitz-
herbert Natura Brevium 164; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown cap.
Si-
(v) Britton Chapter i, Sect. 4, Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown
49 ; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 55 ; 4 Coke's Institutes 271 ; Fitzherbert
Natura Brevium 163 ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c 9, Sect. 7.
(w) Bacon's. Abridgment Title Coroners (A) and cases there cited
and see ante.
(.*) See ante, Sect. 24, note (n) ; Brooke's Abridgment "office" pi.
25, citing 4 Edward IV, 43 and 44; 2 Coke's Institutes, 175 d, 4 Coke's
Institutes 271 ; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 55 ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of
the Crown c 9, Sect. 5; I Elizabeth fol. 152, pi. 2; Anonymous Daliston
15 pi. 7; Tombes v. Etherington, i Levinz, 120 (1663). Resolutions at
Sergeant's Inn. Dyer 165, (1558) ; but Staundeford is of contrary
opinion saying that the coroner is removable at the King's option and
his office ceases when the King dies, see Pleas of the Crown cap. 51.
(y) 2 Coke's Institutes 32.
(2) i Statutes of the Realm 29; see ante, Sect. 13, Henry III gen-
erally orders the sheriff to cause a knight to be elected, Gross's Intro-
duction to Select Coroners Rolls, XX, note 6.
(a) Ante, Sect. 26.
ELECTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF CORONERS 47
cause to remove a coroner that he was not a knight (b). In
Edward Ill's time no coroner could be a justice (c).
Concerning this requirement that he be a knight, Fitz-
herbert tells us (d) that the words are put into the statute
in order that he might have sufficient lands in the county, for
every knight must have lands of at least the value of 20
a year (e). This rule was not as rigid as it seems. Every
man of full age who owned a knight's fee could be forced
to become a knight by common law. This was confirmed by
the statute of i Edward II, Chapter I (de militibus) (/).
From this fact arose, strange as it may seem, the degra-
tion of the office of coroner; for if a man who was not a
knight and who had sufficient lands were elected coroner
he could qualify for the office by becoming a knight. Little
by little the custom of requiring the degree of knighthood
of those who had sufficient lands, became obsolete by the
granting of indulgences to those who did not wish to be-
come knights from whence a large part of the king's rev-
enue arose (g). When the reason for the rule had been
served by causing men of substance to be chosen coroners,
the rule itself fell into decay (h). The statute of 14 Ed-
ward III provided, "That no coroner of the counties shall
be chosen unless he have land in fee sufficient in the same
county whereof he may answer all manner of people" (i),
but says nothing about knighthood. The coroner must
stilli be a man of substance, but it is to be noticed the pre-
cise amount is not named. "It is to be enough to maintain
(&) 23 Assize 7, Register 177, Fitzherbert Natura Brevium 164;
Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown cap. 51 ; 4 Coke's Institutes 271 ; but
this is no longer the case. Borough & Holcroft's Case, 2 Leonard 160
( I S79) ; i Blackstone's Commentaries 347, and see infra.
(c) Rot. Parl., Vol. II, p. 265.
(rf) Natura Brevium 164, and see Bacon's Abridgment Title Cor-
oners (A).
(e) Statute de Militibus; i Edward II, i Statutes of the Realm
229.
(/) i Statutes of the Realm 229.
(g) Jervis on Coroners 10.
(/) Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown 48c; Fitzherbert Natura
Brevium 164; 2 Coke's Institutes 176; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown
55 ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 3.
(i) Statute I c 8. I Statute of the Realm 283 (1340).
48 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
his office and answer any fine that may be set upon him for
misbehavior" (&). By degrees therefore (/) the custom
of electing a knight to be coroner fell out of use. So that it
came to be no objection to a person chosen coroner that he
was not a knight (m). It is possible that the opinion is
correct that the provision as to knighthood was inserted
to protect the counties () for it is certain that if the cor-
oner misbehaved and was unable to pay the fine the county
by which he was elected had to answer for him (0) upon
the principle of respondeat superior (/>).
Knighthood was not the only qualification required of
coroners. "The Statute of Westminster the first directs
they should be knights, but that is out of use" (q). By the
statute of 28 Edward III, chapter 6, they ought to be
lawful and fit men (r). Lord Coke tells us that a coroner
should be "(i) Probus homo, (2) lawful, i. e. legalis homo,
(3) of sufficient understanding and knowledge (s), (4)
of good ability and power to execute his office according
to his knowledge, (5) of diligence and intendance for the
due execution of the said office (f)." For the law regarded
them so highly (u) that "it not onely (sic) required expert
men to be coroners, but men of sufficient ability and liveli-
hood for three purposes. ( i ) The law presumes that they
will do their duty and not offend the law, at least for fear
of punishment whereunto their lands and goods be sub-
ject. (2) That they be able to answer to the king all such
(&) Jervis on Coroners 12.
(/) Because if he had lands sufficient he at first could be forced
to become a knight and later could secure an indulgence; Jervis on
Coroners 10.
(m) Borough & Holcroft's Case, 2 Leonard 160 (1579) ; 2 Haw-
kins's Pleas of the Crown c 9, Sect. 3; Bacon's Abridgment Title Cor-
oners (A).
(n) 2 Coke's Institutes 175.
(o) 2 Coke's Institutes 175; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 55;
Jervis on Coroners 12.
(/>) 2 Coke's Institutes 174-5; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 56;
2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c 9, Sect. 8.
(q) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown 55.
(r) Ibid.
(j) And see Register, 177; Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 164;
Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 48c.
(0 2 Coke's Institutes, 174.
(M) Tempo, Edward I.
ELECTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF CORONERS 49
fines and duties as belong to him and to discharge the county
thereof wherewith the county being their electors were
chargeable. (3) That they might execute their office with-
out bribery (z/)."
.Nor was this all: if the coroner so far engage in any
other public business in the county that he cannot have leis-
ure enough to attend to the office of a coroner, or if chosen
verderor of the forest (w) or justice (x} or if he have not
sufficient lands whereon to live according to his state and
degree (y) or if he follows a common trade, he cannot be
coroner (z}. From this it would seem that the office was
held in great esteem in ancient times (a). Coke says, "they
ought in ancient times to be knights, honest, loyall and sage
* * * et qui melius sciat et velit et possit officio illi in-
tendere for this was the policy of prudent antiquity
that officers did ever give grace to the place and not the
place only to grace the officer" (3;). In the fifth year of
King Edward III a common merchant being chosen a cor-
oner was removed from office "per quod communis merca-
tor erat" (fe). Though the office was considered so honor-
able Chaucer in speaking of Franklyn says, "a shirieve
had he been and a coronour" it was evidently regarded
as a burden for many persons obtained royal grants which
exempted them from acting as coroners (c) and in 1221
a coroner paid a fine to be removed from office (rf). The
office did not seem to suit with a white ruff and laced
sleeves, mere duty seldom rules men's minds: so that, as
Blackstone says (e} "though it be it be culpable neglect,
gentlemen of property do not desire this office and it has
(v) 2 Coke's Institutes, 175.
(w/) Register 177, Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 163-4; Staunde-
ford's Pleas of the Crown, 40; Griesley's Case, 8 Coke's Reports, 41
(1598) ; 2 Coke's Institutes, 32; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9,
Sect. 12; i Blackstone's Commentaries, 348.
(x) Rot. Parl., Vol. II, p. 265.
(y) 2 Coke's Institutes, 32.
(*) 2 Coke's Institutes, 32.
(a) 2 Coke's Institutes, 32 ; 4 Coke's Institutes, 271.
(fr) 5 Edward III, nu. 38; Register, 177; 2 Coke's Institutes, 33.
(c) Roles Gascons (ed. Michel), 45-124-291-297-300-468.
(rf) Pleas of Gloucester, 109.
(e) I Commentaries, 348.
SO OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
fallen into disrepute, so that although formerly no coroner
would have stooped to lucre and by the statute of West-
minster I (/) they were expressly prohibited from receiving
any reward under pain of great forfeiture to the king, yet
for many years past they have only been chosen to the office
for the sake of its perquisites being allowed fees for their
attendance by 3 Henry VII, c. I (of which Sir Edward Coke
complains heavily)" and adds cynically "though since his
time those fees have been much enlarged."
Sect. 31. The coroner is chosen for life (g) but may
be removed (i) by being made sheriff (h) or verderor
(f), which are offices incompatible with that of coroner (),
(2) by the king's writ de conoratore exonerando (/) for
a cause to be therein assigned (m) or (3) by the election of
a new coroner in his place which ipso facto removes the
old one (). The following forms of the writ de coron-
atore exonerando are given by Fitzherbert (0} and are prob-
ably the most approved.
Rex Vic &c. Quia R unus coronatorum nostorum com'
tui divers negotiis nostris in com' tuo faciend' ita occupat
est quod ea quae ad Officio coronatoris in eodem com' perti-
nent exercend vacare non potest, pro certo intelleximus ipsum
ab officip illo amovimus. Tibi praecipimus quod unum alium
coronal or em etc. (ut supra vel sic}.
Qui ex testimonio accipimus fide digno quod W. T.
unus coronatorum nostrorum com' tui adeo languidus est &
senio confectus quod ea &c. exercend' non sufficit ipsum W.
(/) The statute intended here is evidently 4 Edward I. It will
be remembered that statute is sometimes spoken of as the 26th Chapter
of Westminster I.
(0) i Blackstone's Commentaries, 348.
(h) Register, I77b; Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 164 N; i Black-
stone's Commentaries, 348.
(1) Register, I77b; Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 164 N; Staunde-
ford's Pleas of the Crown, 48; 2 Coke's Institutes, 32; 2 Hawkins's
Pleas of the Crown, c. g, Sect. 12; i Blackstone's Commentaries, 348;
Griesley's Case, 8 Coke's Reports, 41 (1598).
(k) i Blackstone's Commentaries, 348.
(/) Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 163-4; i Blackstone's Commen-
taries, 348; Sprecot's Case, 5 Coke's Reports, $8b (1590).
(m) i Blackstone's Commentaries, 348.
(n) Anonymous, Godboldt, 105 pi. 123 (1586).
(o) Natura Brevium, 163-4.
ELECTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF CORONERS 51
duximus ab officio illo removend'. Et ideo tibi praecipimus
&c. (vel. sic).
Quia W unus coronat' &c. minus idon' est ad offic*
illud exequend sicut ex relat & (vel sic).
Quia acceptimus quod w coronat' com' praedict' nuper
elect terr vel tenenenta in mode com' non habet in quibus
juxta statum suum morari possit pro praedict' offic' exercend
Tibi praec' etc. (vel sic).
Quia A unus coronat' &c. morbo pararalysis percuss &c*
(vel sic).
Quia in extremis partibus totius com' morat per quod
ea quae ad offi' &c. commode exercer' non protest (vel sic)~
Quia in officium vie' com' praedict est electus (vel) in
viridarae forest' nostr' des. electus extitit per quod &c. (vel}.
Quia non habet centum sol' terre ut die (vel).
Quia non est miles &c. (p).
The causes for removal which might be used as the
basis of the writ de coronatore exonerando were (i) that
he is engaged in other business (q), (2) is incapacitated by
years (r) or sickness (s), (3) that he has not sufficient es-
tate in the county (t) or lives in an unconvenient part of it
(u), (4) that he is "communis mercator" (v), (5) that
(/) But only one case is recorded where this was made the cause
of removal, 2 Coke's Institutes, 32, and that was in the reign of Ed-
ward III.
(q) Register, 1773; Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 163 N. Staunde-
ford's Pleas of the Crown, 48; 2 Coke's Institutes, 32; i Blackstone's
Commentaries, 348 ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 12.
and see Griesley's Case, 8 Coke's Reports, 41 (1598).
(r) Register, I77b; Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 164 N; Staunde-
ford's Pleas of the Crown, 48; 2 Coke's Institutes, 32; i Blackstone's
Commentaries, 348; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 12.
(j) Register, I77b; Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 164 N; i Black-
stone's Commentaries, 348; Griesley's Case, 8 Coke's Reports, 41 (1598).
(0 Register, 177; Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 163-4; Staunde-
ford's Pleas of the Crown, 48; 2 Coke's Institutes, 32; i Blackstone's
Commentaries, 438; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 12;
Griesley's Case, 8 Coke's Reports, 41 (1598).
(M) Register, I77b; Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 164 N; Staunde-
ford's Pleas of the Crown, 48; i Blackstone's Commentaries, 348, or
out of it see Anonymous, 3 Atkyns, 184 (1744).
(v) 2 Coke's Institutes, 32 ; Comyns' Digest, Title Officer, G. 4.
52 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
he is minus Moncus (;), (6) or misbehaves himself (*).
Indeed during the period we are considering the sixth was
probably not a cause for removal, it having first been created
such in 1752 by the statute of 25 George II, chapter 20 (y)
which made extortion, neglect or misbehavior causes for re-
moval (z}, Hugh de Muscham, coroner of Derbyshire, was
removed from office by virtue of the king's writ without
specifying any cause (a). The calendars of Close Rolls
of Edward II's time indicate that many coroners were re-
moved from office when the new king came to the throne,
but during the rest of the reign such changes were infre-
quent (b). Edward II was deposed from his throne.
Staundeford suggests (bb) that "it would be more com-
mendable in him who is elected coroner if he perceive in
himself any of the aforesaid impediments for him to pur-
chase for himself a writ of discharge from his said office
(f).
In 1351 the commons prayed that sheriffs, coroners and
escheators should be changed annually. Statutes have come
down to us as to sheriffs and escheators, but none as to cor-
oners (or).
Where it is sought to remove a coroner from office, a
suggestion is filed in chancery, alleging the cause. This
suggestion is not traversable (d), but if it be false the cor-
oner can have a commission out of chancery to inquire into
(w~) Register, 177; Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 163 N; 2 Coke's
Institutes, 176; Sprecot's Case, 5 Coke's Reports, 58b (1590).
(x) i Blackstone's Commentaries, 348; see Anonymous, 3 Atkyns,
184 (1744). There is some doubt raised by this case as to whether the
Chancery had a right to remove a coroner, but seems to decide it
could.
(y) 20 Statutes at Large (Eng.), 235.
(z) See I Blackstone's Commentaries, 348.
(a) Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XX; and
Staundeford says this was legal, Pleas of the Crown, 48.
(6) Calendar of Close Rolls (1307-13) 13-165-381-406-470, &c.
(bb) Pleas of the Crown, cap. 51.
(c) Which writ he tells us is to be found in the Register, folio
177-
(cc) Supra, note (a) and Staundeford says that the act did not
pass.
(d) 2 Male's Pleas of the Crown, 56; Fitzherbert Natura Brevium,
163; Sprecot's Case, 5 Coke's Reports, s8b (1500); but this note is
found in Sergeant Hill's copy of Coke's Reports: "This is not war-
ELECTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF CORONERS 53
the truth of it (e ) which acts as a supersedeas if the sug-
gestion is disproved (/). Some go so far as to say that the
king must make it a supersedeas to the sheriff that he do
not remove the coroner, and if the sheriff has already re-
moved him from office, that he suffer him to execute his
office as he did before (g).
It was possible, therefore, that it might be uncertain
who was the coroner and it seems upon principle that this
question should have been tried by the record. It is said,
however, that coroner or not coroner should be tried by the
county from which he is chosen (/i), though this, it seems,
should rightly apply only to cases where the question arose
out of the election of a coroner.
ranted by F. N. B. 163. It is extraordinary that there is a note there
that the cause is not traversable and vouches, 5 Co. 58, for it, and the
notes are always said to be written by Lord Hale. I have compared
F. N. B. with old editions which agree with the more modern, and the
vouching these cases is absurd." But, however absurd it is, the rule
was made law in ex parte Purnell, I Jacobs & Walker, 431 (1820).
(e) Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 164 D; Staundeford's Pleas of
the Crown, 48-49; and he must have notice of the suggestion, Anony-
mous, 3 Atkyn, 184 (1744).
(/) Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 164 D ; 2 Hale's Pleas of the
Crown, 56.
(g) Register, I77b-i78a; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 49;
Fitzherbert Natura Brevium, 164; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9,
Sect. 13.
(h) Where it was alleged one was not coroner at the time at
which the issue was taken, this issue shall be tried per pares and not
by the record, for if the writ de coronatore elegando have not been re-
turned, which often happens, the record will be false, 32 Henry VI, 27
vide The Coroner's Case; Jenkins's Century Cases, 90 pi. 721.
CHAPTER V.
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS.
Sect 32. It is now necessary to direct the attention to
the functions of the coroner. In so doing we will consider,
first, their functions in general; (a) second, their authority
and duties, (), third, their liabilities (c) ; fourth, their
powers (rf) and fifth, their rights and privileges (e). "The
office and powers of coroner" says Blackstone (/), "are also
like those of sheriff's, judicial or ministerial, but principally
judicial. This is in great measure ascertained by the stat-
ute of 4 Edward I."
Sect. 33. "Their jurisdiction by 4 Edward I," says
Lord Hale (g} "is i, of the death of a man by felony or
misfortune, 2, treasure trove, 3, appeals of rape, 4, appeals
de plagis and makemio, 5, of deodands, 6, of wreck of the
sea, 7, by some of breaches of prison (/&)" To set forth
at large the different descriptions of their powers by the
many authorities (*) who have described them would be
tedious, but it may perhaps be well to enumerate the various
powers attributed to them. They are said to have power to
record of all pleas of the crown (&), to take inquisitions of
(a) Post, Sect. 33.
(&) Post, Sects. 34-35-36-37-38.
(O Post, Sect. 39.
(d) Post, Sects. 40-41-42.
(e} Post, Sects. 43-44.
(/) i Commentaries, 348, citing 4 Inst. 271 ; Ld. Raym. 1305.
(g) 2 Pleas of the Crown, 57.
(h) And see 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 65-435; Hale's Sum-
mary, 170-1 ; Fleta lib. i c. 26, Sect. 5 ; Staundeford's Pleas of the
Crown, 51 ; 2 Coke's Institutes, 32 ; 4 Coke's Institutes, 271 ; Comyns'
Digest, Title Officer, G. 8; Umfreville Lex Coronatoris, 210, for the
death many have been caused per dure Guard.
(i) Bracton, Britton, Fleta, Mirror, Staundeford, Fitzherbert,
Coke, Hale, Umfreville, Hawkins, Jervis, have all defined the duties
of coroner in the most unique way.
(k) In the tourn Gilbert's Historical View of the Exchequer, 80;
and see Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13, and 4 Edward I, Sect. I.
(54)
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS SS
death, (/) and felo de se (w), of wounding (w), rape (0),
arson (/>), housebreaking (q), prison breach (r) and other
felonies (.y), of treasure trove (t), wreck of the sea (u),
and royal fish (z/), appeals of murder or manslaughter (/),
wounds (x), maim (y), robbery (2), rape (a) or other
felonies (&), to impose abjurations (c), to receive confes-
sions in sanctuary (d), the confessions and appeals of an
approver (tf), but not of treason even by special writ of
the King (/) to receive proof of Englishery (g~), forfeiture
(h), deodands (t), to award a capias and alias and thereupon
demand the defendant at five counties and outlaw the de-
fendant (&), to record the nonsuit of the plaintiff in an
(/) Bracton, f. 121; 4 Edward I, Sect, i; Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13;
Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, c. 51 ; Fleta, Book i, Chapter 25,
Sect. i.
(w) Gilbert's History View of the Exchequer, 80.
(w) Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13; Bracton, f. i2ib; 4 Edward I, Sect, i;
Britton, c. I, 5-39; Fleta, Book i, Chapter 25, Sects, i and 15.
(0) Britton, c. i, Sect. 5; Fleta, lib. i, Cap. 25, Sect. 14.
(f>) Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13.
(q) Bracton, f. I2ib; 4 Edward I, Sect. i.
(r) Britton, c. i, Sect. 5 ; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 57.
(s) Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13; Britton, c. i, Sect. 5.
(0 Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13; Bracton, f. 121 b. I ; 4 Edward I, Sect.
2; Fleta, Book i, c. 25, Sect. i.
() Mirror, c. I, Sect 13; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 57.
(v) Britton, c. I, Sect. 42.
(w) Britton, c. I, Sect. 15; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown,
c. 52.
(*) Bracton, f. I2ib; 4 Edward I, Sect. 2.
(y) Bracton, f. I2ib; 4 Edward I, Sect. 2.
(z) Britton, c. i, Sect. 15.
(a) Bracton, f. I2ib; 4 Edward I, Sect. 2; Britton, c. I, Sects.
5-38; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 57; Fleta, Book i, Chapter 25, Sect.
14; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, c. 52.
(&) Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13.
(c) Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, c. 51.
(<0 Britton, c. I, Sect. 36.
(e) Britton, c. i, Sect. 36; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, c. 51.
(/) 2 Coke's Institutes, 629; 6 Viner's Abridgment, 246.
(g) Britton, c. I, Sect. 35.
(/) 4 Edward I, Sect, i; Bracton, f. I2ib; Britton, c. i, Sect. 13.
(1) Britton, c. i, Sect. 28; Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13.
(k) Britton, c. i, Sects. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; Mirror, c. I, Sect.
13; Gilbert's Historical View of the Exchequer, 80; Staundeford's Pleas
of the Crown, c. 51.
56 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
appeal by bill before him (/), and all judgments of death
given in his jurisdiction (w).
All these things may be classified into four general
heads: I. The power to take inquests () ; 2. to receive
and record appeals (o) ; 3. as to outlawry (00) ; 4. as to
sanctuary and abjurations (/).
Certain matters, however, remain to be noticed before
commencing the consideration of these powers seriatim.
The office and duties of coroner have been, as we have seen,
from the first a live and growing thing, they have altered
from time to time (9). We ought not to be surprised to
find, then, that in the early days, before his office had wholly
ceased to be connected with the idea of judgeship of the
county court, he sometimes convened the hundred for busi-
ness and even held the sheriff's torn (r~) or that he con-
ducted civil jury trials (even after 1215) (s). They were
comptrollers to the sheriff, keeping a record of the fines
and amercements in the sheriff's court.
Whatever his powers are, at any given time, they can-
not be enlarged by special delegation from the crown (/)
(0 2 Male's Pleas of the Crown, 67; Saundeford's Pleas of the
Crown, c. 51.
(m) Britton, c. i, Sect. 40. This sounds very fierce, but the object
was that all the minor courts which had power of life and death
might not pass sentence until the coming of the Justices, and they
were then met by the coroners' roll and the Justices passed upon the
correctness of the judgment. Umfreville's note to this section.
(n) Post, Sects. 34-35.
(0) Post, Sect. 36.
(00) Post, Sect. 37.
(/>) Post, Sect. 38.
(q) For the functions of coroners in the reigns of John and Henry
III, see Rotuli Curiae Regis, Vol. i, pp. 51-418; Selden's Pleas, pp.
3-9-19-28-33-45-63-70-84-88-100-117; Pleas of Gloucester, 4-15-20-47-78-
94-115.
(r) Selden's Pleas, 68-70.
(j) Bracton's Note Book, Vol. II, pp. 277-389-420-425-452-466-516-
571-572-627-675-682; Vol. Ill, pp. 151-155-228-264-473; Salt. Soc., Vol.
IV, pp. 84-95-97; Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicae, Vol. VI, p. 2. In
1305, the king ordered an inquiry whether coroners put poor people
on juries to spare the rich.
(/) 2 Coke's Institutes, 629; Finch Law, 388. So no coroner,
though he have a special commission from the crown, can take a con-
fession of high or petit treason, Umfreville Lex Coronatoris, 155 sed
quare 19 Henry VI, 47f.
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS 57
yet where the body cannot be viewed (u) a commission from
the king obviates the objection to the coroner's jur-
isdiction (v), but this is not because he is coroner, but
because the king had the right to appoint a commissioner
to inquire.
Sect. 34. The first of the powers or duties of the
coroner is the power to take inquests. We have already
seen (w) that there were from two to six coroners in
every county. The six coroners constituted but one officer,
yet any one coroner might sit in cases of inquests, an in-
quest taken by one coroner was good (x). Indeed it was
so good that if thereafter another one or more of the cor-
oners took an inquest on the same body the second inquest
was void (y).
It was the duty of the coroner when he was notified
(2) that one had been slain (a) or was suddenly dead (b)
to hold an inquest upon the body (c). But he was not re-
quired to hold his inquisition ex officio unless he was notified
() The coroner cannot take his inquisition if there can be no
view of the body.
(v) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 25.
(;) Ante, Sect. 23.
(x) Bracton Retorn de Briefs, pi. 42; 14 Henry IV, 34; Jenkins,
85, pi. 65; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 53a; 2 Hale's Pleas of
the Crown, 56-66.
(y) 14 Henry IV, 34-35; 3 Henry VI, 6-40-41-42; Fitzherbert
Abridgment, 107 ; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 52 ; 2 Hale's Pleas
of the Crown, 56-58-59-67 ; Hale's Summary, 172 ; i Hawkins's Pleas
of the Crown, c. i, Sect 10; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9,
Sect. 45.
(z) 4 Edward I, Sect, i, says when the coroner have "command"
of the king's bailiffs or from good men of the county, and see Britton,
c. i, Sect. 5, "upon notice of a felony or misadventure"; Mirror, c. i,
Sect. 13, "warned"; Bracton, f. I2ib, "receive a mandate from the
bailiff," or from "prud Hommes" of the neighborhood, and see Fleta,
Book I, c. 25, Sect. I.
(a) Bracton, fol. I2ib ; 4 Edward I, Sect, i ; Britton, c. i, Sect. 5 ;
Fleta, lib. i, cap. 25, Sect, i ; Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13.
(6) By felony or mischance, Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13, "suddenly
dead"; 4 Edward I, Sect, i, whether by felony or misadventure; Brit-
ton, c. i, Sect. 9, and if he died by misadventure it is to be further
inquired by what accident, whether by drowning or by a fall or by
killing without other prepense malice, or was a felon on himself, Brit-
ton, c. i, Sects. 26-27-28.
(c) Regularly he can only take inquisitions touching the death of
a man and persons subito morttus and some special incidents thereto,
58 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORpNERS
to do so (d). The inquisition must be super visum corporis,
and if the body could not be found the coroner could not
sit (?). East is of the opinion that if the party died of a
fever or apparent visitation of God there is no call for the
coroner to act (/). In this proposition he is partly right. If
the party died of a fever he died a natural death, and though
it might seem sudden its suddenness cannot be compared
with that of death by murder or unforeseen violence. It
cannot be said that every case of death by visitation of God
is not a fit subject of inquisition by the coroner. John Doe
goes to the fields, and, being taken with the "falling sick-
ness," he falls down and dies. Well and good, but the
"falling sickness" may have been due to poison (g). It
would not be proper to say that every case of sudden death
should be investigated. Bracton, indeed, says (/&) and his
remark is in ipsis verbis with the statute of 4 Edward I
(*) "where one is slain or suddenly dead." They mention
as the means of coming to this end, wounding, drowning
and strangling, and suggest that this may be determined by
the marks upon the body. There is absolutely nothing in
the statute nor in Bracton to indicate that a death other-
wise than by violence at the hands of another is contem-
plated except the unexplained words "suddenly dead." The
(d) Queen v. Clerk, i Salkeld, 377 (1702). See i East's Pleas of
the Crown, 378.
(e) i Blackstone's Commentaries, 348, citing 4 Inst. 271 ; 2 Ld.
Raymond, 1305; Welchmen's Case, Latch. 166 (1662); s. c. Popham,
209 (1656), citing 6 Richard II, coron f. 107; 2 Richard III, f. 2; 21
Edward IV, f. 70, and see Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, Book 2,
cap. 52.
(/) i Pleas of the Crown, 378. In opposition to this view we find :
"If a person die suddenly tho it be of fever and the township bury
him before sending for the coroner the whole township shall be
amerced." Itin North Coron 3, 19 note ; 2 Hale, 57. But this case is
misprinted and Hale says he himself had seen the transcript at large
"which in libra meo f. 52b is morust de feynf, i. e., starved by hunger,"
and the coroner need not be sent for in every case, but only if the
death be unnatural or violent, 2 H. P. C. 57; and Blackstone says:
"The inquiry must be made in all cases of persons coming to sudden
or violent death," in what manner soever he came to his death, 4 Com-
mentaries, 274. And Fleta goes to considerable length to tell what must
be done in case a man die by misfortune, lib. i, Cap. 25, Sect. 9.
(). If homicide were committed
in an enclosed town by day or by night or in any other
town by day and the offender were not caught, the town or
ville was amerced and if it were not sufficient the hundred
and even the county (#). The enclosed town was held to
closer accountability because at night the gates were supposed
(qq} to be shut and in the day it was very easy to shut the
gates when the hue and cry was raised. The hue and cry
ought to be raised in an unenclosed town as well. It was
the duty of the whole town to pursue the criminal and so
from town to town until he was caught. When an unnatural
death happened it was the duty of the township upon pain
of amercement to notify the coroner (r). Not only must
(/*) See Jervis on Coroners, Chapter X.
(g) Fitzherbert's Abridgment Coroners, 299; 3 Coke's Institutes,
53; i Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 448-604; 2 Hale's Pleas of the
Crown, 73 ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown c 12, Sects. 2 and 3 ; Um-
f reville's Lex Coronatoris, 215 ; 3 Henry VII, c. I. But Bracton tells
us this was only where the hue and cry was not levied. Bracton
f iiSb.
(qq} See Milbourn's Case, 7 Coke's Reports, 6b (1587) ; 3 Ed-
ward III, Coron, 299; 2i Edward III, coron., 238. In the former case
Lowther J. actually did amerce a town because a burglar was not
forthcoming.
(r) Burns Justice (25th Edition), 786, 3 Edward III, coron., 339.
"If the township leave a body unburied and send not for the coroner it
shall be amercied either upon a presentement by the grand jury or
by the coroner" ; and see 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 57, this is so
whether the body be buried or suffered to putrify unless the town-
ship send for the coroner, Burn's Justice, supra. But Fitzherbert
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS 61
the people notify the coroner, but they must assist him to
hold the inquisition. It was the duty of every man in the
town where the death occurred to be present at the inquest
and tell all he knew (s) of the circumstances of the death
(ss). The body must be left for the coroner and his jury
to view. To bury the body without sending for the coroner
was an indictable offence (/). But if the body had been
buried when the coroner came he might dig it up (u), pro-
vided he came within a reasonable time after the body was
buried (v), and fourteen days has been held a reasonable
time (;). But if the body had lain buried long and
(ww) had been suffered to putrefy (x} so that to disinter
it would be useless (xx) or dangerous to the community (y)
it should not be exhumed and the coroner should hold no
Coroners, 329-339-421 ; Male's Summary, 171 ; Staundeford's Pleas of the
Crown, 51 ; Lord Buchhurst's Case, i Keble, 278, "and it is the duty of
all persons in whose houses such accidents happen to give immediate
notice to the proper officer." King v. Solgard, Andrews, 231; S. C, 2;
Strange, 1097 (1738)^ and see Itinerant Northampton Coron., 319; 2
Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 57, and Fleta, Book i, c 25, Sect. 3.
(s) The word "man" is not used generically, from the nature of
woman we may suppose they were not expected to tell all they knew
or no inquest could have been completed until the female witnesses
were dead.
() Fleta Lib., I Cap. 24, Sect. i.
(/) Queen v. Clerk, i Salkeld, 377, pi. 2 s. c.; Holt, 167, pi. 3
(1702), and per Holt, "it is matter indictable to bury a man that dies
a violent death before the coroner's inquest have sat upon him. Anony-
mous, 7 Modern 10 (1702), and see 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown,
c 9, Sect. 23.
() Britton, c I, Sect. 7; 2 Burn's Justice, 29 (Edition of 1845);
Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13; 2 Richard III, 2a; 21 Edward IV, 70-71; Queen
v. Clerk, i Salkeld, 377 pi. 2, s. c. ; Holt, 167 (1702) ; Rex v. Stukeley,
Holt, 167 (1701); Brooke's Abridgment Coron., p. 121, 166, 167, 173;
Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 51 ; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown,
58-59; Hale's Summary, 170; 2 Hawkins's, Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, 23;
Jervis on Coroners, 5 and 6; but he should record the fact in order
that the township may be amercied; Jervis, 5 and 6; Mirror, c. I, Sect.
13 ; Britton, c. I, Sect 7.
(v) Queen v. Clerk (supra).
(w) 2 Richard III, 2a; Jenkins, 162 pi. 8; Carthew, 72; in Brooke's
Abridgment Coroners, pi. 166 and 21 Edward IV, 70-71, it is said 40
days is a reasonable time, while seven months has been held too long
a period; Rex v. Bond, i Strange, 22 (1717) ; Queen v. Clerk (supra) ;
Rex v. Solgard (supra) ; I Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 414.
(ww) Rex v. Bond, I Strange 22, (1717); King v. Parker, 2
Levinz, 141, (1675).
(x) Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, Book 2, cap. 52.
(**) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sec. 23.
(y) Queen v. Clerk, i Salkeld, 377, pi. 2 (1702).
62 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
inquest he was without authority, unless he had a special
commission (yy). Perhaps the better practice was to obtain
leave of court before digging the body up (z). This was
essential if the return was quashed (a) the body having been
buried after inquisition held. The judges must exercise their
discretion, however, in granting this commission (6). Of
course if the body could not be found there could be no in-
quest as we shall see later (c). In that case, however, the
community was not without relief. There were several
methods by which the matter could be investigated ; the jus-
tices of Oyer and Terminer might enquire (d) or the justices
of the peace (e} the King's Bench might appoint a special
commission to enquire (/) or the grand jury might inquire
(g) but these are not inquests
(yy) Kale's Summary, 170; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown,
c. 9, Sect. 23; Anonymous, i Ventris 352 (1680). But with a com-
mission he may take it, Foxley's Case, 5 Coke's Reports, no (1601) ; 2
Rolle's Abridgment, 92; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 58 and if he
holds the view that under these circumstances (putrefaction) without
getting leave of court it is in the discreton of the King's Bench
whether they will receive it or not, Rex v. Causey, B. R., 1717, Mss.
reported in 2 Bacon's Abridgment, 429.
(z) Berkley's Case, 2 Siderfen, 90 (1658) ; Queen v. Clerk, i Sal-
keld, 377, pi. 2 (1702) ; Comyn's Digest, Title Officer, G. n, if he take
the inquisition so long after the death as to be of no use the court
will refuse to receive or file it. Rex v. Bond, I Strange, 22 (1717) ;
2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 24. Indeed, he may be
amercied for taking up a body which had been buried so long as to
be so decomposed that nothing could be gained, Rex v. Parker, 2 Le-
vinz, 140 (1675).
(a) Rex v. Saunders, i Strange, 167; Anonymous, i Strange, 533
(1723). For not only could the coroner disinter a body to take an in-
quest, but to take a good one when the first was void for any reason ;
see 21 Edward IV, 7ob ; 2 Richard III, pi. 2-5 ; Staundeford's Pleas of
the Crown, 51 ; Brooke's Abridgment Coroners, 167.
(&) Queen v. Clerk, i Salkeld, 377, pi. 2 (1702) ; Rex v. Bond,
i Strange, 22 (1717) ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 23.
(c) Post, Sect. 45, note (d).
().
Sect. 35. It is a matter of doubt whether a coroner
could take an inquisition other than for the death of a man
(g). Hale tells us rather doubtfully that he can and states
the cases to be these :
(') Ante, Fleta, Book i, c. 26, Sect. 3.
() Fleta, Book i, c 26, Sect. 3. Stephen's Digest of Criminal
Procedure, Article, 210; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, 47; Fitz-
herbert's Abridgment, 421 ; 3 Coke's Institutes, 52-91 ; Brooke's Abridg-
ment Coroners, 168; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 57; 4 Blackstone's
Commentaries, 274.
(w) "If a man be taken by process and after die in prison, the
coroner ought to see him, which ought to be returned by the sheriff to
the court." 6 Viner's Abridgment, 245, citing Brook's Abridgment, p.
1167.
(n) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 57, and he takes his authority
from Fleta, Book I, c. 26, Sect. 3.
(0) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 23, citing Fitz-
herbert's Abridgment Coroners, 329, 339, 421 ; Staundeford's Pleas of
the Crown, 51 ; Lord Buchhurst's Case, i Keble, 278. Perhaps it is
from this remark that Burns has concluded that if the body of any is
suffered to putrify, the gaoler is to be amercied, supra, note (r), Fleta,
Book i, c 26, Sect. 3; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, c 52.
(/>) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 57-58; 3 Edward III, Coron., 292;
8 Edward II, Coron. 421.
(q) But every inquest of death which ends in a verdict of felony
necessarily includes an inquest concerning the lands, goods and chat-
64 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
I. de thesauro invento; 2, of wreck and royal fish and
3, it seems he had power to attach persons who had danger-
ously wounded another (r). In this statement he implicitly
relies on the statute of fourth Edward I. The more usual
and better founded statement is that as the sheriff in his
torn might inquire of all felonies except the death of a man
so the coroner could only inquire of the death of man (.$).
The two propositions are not mutually exclusive for treasure
trove, royal fish and wreck of the sea are not felonies. Coke
tries to harmonize the two views by saying that the coroner
shall inquire of no felony but death, but he shall inquire "of
the escape of the murderer (t), of treasure trove, of deod-
ands and of wreck of the sea" (w).
It must be remembered that the coroner's power to re-
ceive an appeal and to take an inquest are two entirely dif-
ferent things. The confusion over the power of the coroner
to take inquests other than death may have arisen from a
confusion of his power to receive appeals with his power to
take inquests (v). According to Staundeford he had no
power to take any indictment except for the death of a man
(;). But while Hale and Staundeford speak doubtfully
of his power to take inquests other than for the death of
tels forfeited thereby and every inquest of death necessarily includes
an inquest concerning the depdand which may have accrued to the
King and Lord of the franchise, i Blackstone's Commentaries, 348.
(r) 2 Pleas of the Crown, 66; see Fleta Lib. I, cap. 25, Sect. 15;
in Sect. 14, Fleta says he may do the same in cases of rape.
(j) And that only super visum corporis, 27 Assize, 55; 35 Henry
VI, 27-b; Fitzherbert's Abridgment Coroners, 206; Staundeford's
Pleas of the Crown, 51 ; Brooke's Abridgment Appeals III, 2 Coke's
Institutes 147, 4 Coke's Institutes, 271 ; 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 88;
Kale's Summary, 171 ; Umf reville's Lex Coronatoris XXVIII ; 2 Haw-
kins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 34; Staundeford's Pleas of the
Crown, c 52, says he can only inquire of the death of a man.
(0 The inquiry whether fugam fecit was a necessary part of the
inquest of murder, Post, Sect. 58.
(w) 4 Coke's Institutes, 271.
(v ) As to his power to receive appeals, see Post, Sect. 36.
(w) Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 51, relying on 35 Henry
VI, fol. 27, Neaham J., and see 2 Coke's Institutes, 147; 4 Coke's In-
stitutes, 271 ; 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 65 ; Kale's Summary 171 ; 2
Bacon's Abridgment 430, "notwithstanding Magna Carta" says Coke, 2
Institutes, 32. But in Northumberland he inquires of many other
felonies by special custom.
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS 65
a man (JF) and Coke denies it (3;), Hawkins is strongly of
the opinion that he has such a power, relying on the statute
of fourth Edward I, and on Britton to prove he had it, and
adding that it has never been taken away (yy).
The suggestion has been made that the coroner ought
to inquire into arsons and fires.
This is so wide a power that perhaps it is wise to con-
sider the basis upon which these conflicting views rest.
The view that the coroner has no such power rests
upon two reported decisions and upon the opinions of sev-
eral writers. In 27 Assize, 55 "a coroner entered his in-
dictments in the King's Bench, that a certain man taken for
felony was conducted to a church by certain friars and that
they might be arrested and because the coroner has no right
to receive an indictment unless on the body being present or
by the command of a writ" (2} a writ was issued to the
coroner to certify whether he had any other warrant or
not.
There is a case in the year book (35 Henry VI, 33b, pi.
276) which is purely obiter. Needham, ]. said: "For I
say that coroners have power to inquire of no felony, ex-
cept of the death of a man; again in Northumberland cor-
oners have power to inquire of all felonies, etc., by custom."
Perhaps the annotater nearest in point of time to these
decisions is Staundeford (a) who assures us in his Pleas of
the Crown (fr) that the coroner has no power to take in-
quests except for the death of a man. Brooke cites the
case in 27 Assize with approbation in Le Graunde Abridg-
(*) Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 51 ; 2 Kale's Pleas of the
Crown, 65 ; Hale's Summary, 171.
(y) 2 Institutes, 147; 4 Institutes, 271.
(yy) 2 Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 35, citing Britton f3, and 4
Edward I, Sect. 2.
(a) See the very interesting article by Sherston Baker, 12 Law
Magazine and Review, 248, wherein he tries to prove that the coroner
has power to hold inquests in such cases. He sets aside the opinions
of Coke, Hale and Comyns as founded upon improper information
and of no weight and annotates the Statute of 4 Edward I exten-
sively.
(a) A. D. 1583, Fleta wrote before these decisions.
(&) Page 51.
66 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
ment (c) Lord Coke in his Institutes twice (d) affirms the
previous view relying solely on the two cases above referred
to. Lord Hale follows suit in his Pleas of the Crown (e)
and Summary (/). The learned Viner (g) and Chief Baron
Comyns (h) are both of the same opinion.
To oppose this complete chain of legal classics, of the
weight of whose links we will speak later, we have the
opinions of Bracton, Fleta, Britton and the Mirror and
the apocryphal statute of fourth Edward I. We find that
all five authorities assert that the coroner may inquire of
wounding ('). Bracton and the statute add house break-
ing (&). Fleta adds rape (/), Britton adds prison breach
to this (nt) while the Mirror (mm) though omitting to name
the latter two felonies specifically states that the coroner
may inquire of arson "and other felonies." Upon the
strength of these early authorities and the weakness of the
cases upon which the opposite doctrine rests, Hawkins
bases a strong argument to the effect that the coroner may
still inquire of rape and prison breach. The case in 27
Assize he tells us is really a question as to the coroners'
power to inquire of accessories after the fact while the one in
thirty-fifth Henry VI is purely obiter (w). Hale explains the
case in thirty-fifth Henry VI by saying that in Northumber-
land the coroner has power to inquire of other felonies (nn)
(c) A. D. 1786, Title Indictment, pi. 29.
(rf) 2 Institutes, 147; 4 Institutes, 271.
(e) Vol. 2, pp. 65-88.
(/) P. i?i.
(0) 6 Abridgment, 245.
(A) Digest Title Officer, G. 9.
(0 4 Edward I, Sect, i, supra, Bracton f. I2ib; Fleta Lib. i Cap.
25, Sect. 15; Britton, Chap. I, Sects. 5-39; Mirror, Chapt. I, Sect. 13.
Britton even directs what is to be inquired in such a case, Chapt. i,
Sec. 39.
(*) Bracton, f i2ib; 4 Edward I, Sect. i.
(/) Lib. i, cap. 25, Sect. 14.
(m) Britton, c i, Sects. 5-38, the latter section even directs what
shall be inquired in an inquest of rape, i. e., the force, the felony, pre-
sumptive signs such as effusion of blood, and clothes torn. Fleta also
mentions rape and goes to considerable length as to the coroner's duties
in this regard Lib. i, cap. 25, Sect. 14, he tells us those guilty are to be
attached without bail.
(mm) Chapter i, Sect. 13.
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS 67
and such it seems is the case (0). It seems possible that the
statute of fourth Edward I may be right as to the powers
of coroners and that these powers were lost by degrees in
the realm generally while they were retained by special cus-
tom in Northumberland. Such an explanation would recon-
cile the position of Britton, Fleta, Bracton and the Mirror
with that of Coke, Hale and Comyns. Coburn, C. J. in a
recent case in England summarized the whole situation (/>).
He says "we have the authority of three of the greatest
writers who have expounded and illustrated the law of
England for saying that the office of coroner with reference
to felonies is limited to cases of homicide on view of the
body. Lord Coke and Lord Hale in clear and distinct terms
lay down that as law and it is adopted by Comyns, C. B. in
his last digest without the expression of any doubt on his
part. These three authorities are sufficient in the absence
of statutory enactments to the contrary to establish any
proposition of law."
But whether or not the coroner had power to inquire
of felonies other than death there are certain matters to
which his jurisdiction beyond doubt extended. It is rea-
sonably certain he had power to inquire of treasure trove
(q). Comyns makes a doubt of this and says he has power
to attach persons suspected of treasure trove (r). But the
older authorities are undoubted. Of wreck of the sea, he
might inquire (j) and of royal fish sturgeons and whales,
(n) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 35.
(n) 2 Pleas of the Crown, 66.
(o) The statute of fourth Edward I certainly was construed in
Northumberland and in certain other portions of England to give
a wider jurisdiction than that usually conceded, 78 Law Times, 332.
But the case of Regina v. Herford, 3 Ellis & Ellis, 115 s. c., 6 Jurist
(N. S.) 750; 20 L. J. Q. B., 249, excluded this special jurisdiction.
(f>) Regina v. Herford (supra).
(q) Bracton, f I2ib, Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, c 52;
Fleta Liber, I, cap. 25, Sects, i and n ; 4 Edward I, Sect, i, supra; Mir-
ror, c i, Sect. 13; Britton, c I, Sects. 5-42, and this power has not be-
come extinct ; it was exercised as recently as Regina v. Thomas, Leigh
& Cave, 313 (1863), and see Stephen's Digest of Criminal Procedure,
Articles 20-228, for the modern English Practice and see 2 Hawkins's
Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 36; i Blackstone's Commentaries, 349.
(r) Comyns Digest Title Officer, G. 9, and see I Blackstone's
Commentaries, 349.
(j) And see that it is valued and delivered to the town and
this by the statute of 4 Edward I, Sect. I (3 Edward I, Sect. 4), and
68 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
(/) but possibly his powers as to royal fish do not extend
to holding an inquisition.
Sect. 36. "His third power" says Lord Hale, () is
to take the accusations of an approver" (v). With due
respect to so great an authority the proposition is not broad
enough, the duty of the coroner in this respect is to receive
appeals (w). His power to receive appeals of approvers
was broader than that as to other appeals (ww), for while
his authority to receive other appeals extended only to his
own county, he could receive the appeals of an approver
concerning a felony committed in any county (x). But
even on this point all authorities do not agree (y}. It is
certain that as to appeals in general he may only take the
appeal where the felony was committed in his county (s)
and the reason given, viz. : that the felony may only be tried
in the county where it was committed applies, if it applies at
all, with equal force to appeals of approvers as to any other
appeal (a). He could receive appeals for murder
see Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13; Comyns' Digest Title Officer, G. 10, to in-
quire whether wreck or not and certify the same and who is in pos-
session of the goods, i Blackstone's Commentaries, 349.
(f) Britton, c. i, Sect. 42, where it is said the finders both of royal
fish and treasure are to be let to mainprize, but note there can be no
concealment of treasure trove until it appear by the coroners inquest
that there is treasure which has been trove ; Umf reville note to Sect.
42, supra. See Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, c. 52.
() 2 Pleas of the Crown, 67.
(v) Lord Hale thus defines an approver (see 2 P. C., 67).
(w) Bracton, ff 122, 147, Fleta, Book i c, 25; Britton f 5, Mir-
ror, c i, Sect. 13; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 64; 22 Assize, 97,
98; Finch, 321.
(ww) The case of an appeal by an approver differs from an ap-
peal of a person grieved, 5 Henry V Coron., 437; 29 Edward III, 42
Coron., 462; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 53.
(*) 29 Edward III, 42 Coron., 462; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown,
67 ; but the appeal of a felony or treason out of the county must be
certified to the justices of goal delivery and they make process into
any country in England to take the person appealed, 5 Henry V Coron.,
437; 29 Edward III, 42; Coron, 462; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown,
53-
(y) Some make no exceptions, Staundeford f. 52b, 53, 633, 2
Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 67; Hale's Summary, 171-172; Fitzherbert's
Abridgment, 437.
(*) Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 52b, 53-63; 2 Hale's Pleas
of the Crown, 67-68; Summary, 172; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown,
c 9, Sect. 43.
(a) Hawkins undertakes to explain this by saying "but he may
receive the appeal of an approver or take the adjuration of one who
acknowledges a felony done by him in any county for after such con-
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS 69
larceny (bb), rape (c), robbery (d}, de plagis (e) and may-
hem (/). The appeal was received by the coroner and re-
corded in his roll, he then required pledges of the appellor to
prosecute (g) and of the appellee for his appearance (h) or
in more serious cases committed the appellee to the cus-
tody of the sheriff (i). But the appellee did not appear
before the coroner the appeal was recorded in his
absence, though whether the coroners could do
more remains in doubt. Outlawry proceedings were
then in order. Lord Hale tells us the coroner
should issue a precept to the sheriff (fc). Coke says he
shall proceed no further than entry of the appeal and shall
then deliver it to the justices (/). Hawkins tells us
that he had power to proceed thereon to outlawry against
an appellee (w). This opinion he evidently draws from
Britton who goes at length into the powers of the coroner
in outlawry upon appeals (w). One coroner could receive
appeals (o), though the sheriff usually sat with the coroner
fession there need be no trial," 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9.
Sect. 40, and see Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, c 52.
(&) 4 Edward I, 3.
(bb) Britton, c i, Sect. 43.
(c) Bracton, f 122; 4 Edward I, Sect. 3; Britton, c I, Sect. 43.
(d) 4 Edward I, Sect. 3; Britton, c I, Sect. 43; Staundeford's
Pleas of the Crown, c 52.
(e} 4 Edward I, Sect. 3; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, c 52.
(/) 4 Edward I, Sect. 3, Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, c 52.
(g) Britton, c i, Sect. 16, and he must prosecute within a year
and a d,ay, ibid. The pledges are taken to the sheriff of the county
in whose bailiwick the felony was committed.
(h) 4 Edward I, Sect. 3; Britton, c I, Sect. 18, two pledges or in
case of rape and some other felonies where they are aggravated, six.
(i) 4 Edward I, Sect. 3.
(k) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 67-68; but if he be a coroner
of a franchise it must go to the sheriff, not to the bailiff of the fran-
chise, for he can only execute process within the franchise, 29 Edward
III, 42, Coron., 462; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 68.
(/) 2 Coke's Institutes, 32; Comyns Digest Title Officer, G. 5.
(m) 2 Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 43, yet it is certain he cannot
award process against an appellee in a foreign county the justices of
gaol delivery does that, Fitzherbert's Abridgment Coroner, 462. Staun-
deford's Pleas of the Crown, 53-73 ; Hale's Summary, 172 ; 29 Edward
III, 42-
() Chapter I, Sects. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.
(o) 14 Henry IV, 34.
70 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
(/>), they forming the coroner's court (q). Some author-
ities tell us that the coroner was the sole judge of this
court (r).
Sect. 37. Outlawry goes back to the most primitive
period of Teutonic history, to the laws of the tribesmen be-
fore they had come to be identified with specific territory (s).
This might lead us to the conclusion that the coroner's office
was a Saxon institution and not a Norman one (/), were it
not for the fact that the earliest traces of the office of coroner
show no signs of this feature of its power.
The pronunciation of the judgment of outlawry was
long per judicium coronatorum (w). It being the duty of
the coroner to be present at the county court to pronounce
the judgment of outlawry upon the exigent after quintus
exactus at the fifth couny court if the defendant did not ap-
pear (v). At common law the coroner could try and out-
law but under Chapter 17 of Magna Carta he can neither
try nor outlaw (w). He could still award an exigent, how-
ever, (x} and pronounce the judgment of outlawry (xx~).
Upon the inquisition of one coroner process lies to outlawry
(y) but quare if the coroner could issue process of out-
lawry (2}. Hale says "but now it is different (since Magna
Carta) the coroner doth not proceed to outlawry but cer-
(/>) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 39.
(q) See Post, Sect. 40.
(r) 2 Coke's Institutes, 176; 4 Henry VI, i6b, 2 Hawkins's Pleas
of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 39, contra; 17 Assize, 5 ; Brooke's Abridgment
Title Appeal, 56; Staundeford's Plea of the Crown, 52, 64; Hale's
Summary, 171.
(j) Forsythe Trial by Jury 45.
(0 See ante, Chapter I.
() Gilbert's Historical View of the Exchequer, 80; Britton, c I,
Sect. 4.
(v) Wood's Institutes, b i, c i ; Jervis on Coroners, 50.
(/) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 66.
(*) 22 Assize, 97; Fitzherbert's Abridgment Title Coroners, 184;
Mirror, c I, Sect. 13; contra Brooke's Abridgment Title Appeal, 82;
Quere, Ibid 108, accord Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 64; 2 Hale's
Pleas of the Crown, 67; Hale's Summary, 171; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of
the Crown, c 9, Sect. 41.
(xx) Supra note (x) but the Mayor of London does not though
coroner pronounce sentences of outlawry, the Recorder does; City of
London's Case, 8 Coke's Reports, i2ib, I26a (1610).
(y) Frenche's Case, 2 Leonard, 200 (1584).
(2) 27 Assize, 47, where a man was indicted before the coroner
and upon that was outlawed by the coroners.
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS 71
tifies it to the next gaol delivery who are to proceed against
the offenders if they are in the gaol and if not to certify it
into the King's Bench who proceed to outlawry. The judg-
ment of outlawry must be entered by two coroners (a).
Outlawry is a punishment inflicted on a person who is
guilty of a contempt and contumacy by refusing to be amen-
able to and abide by the justice of that court which has law-
ful authority to call him before it. As this is a crime of the
highest nature, being an act of rebellion against the state
and community of which the offender is a member it sub-
jects him to heavy forfeiture and disabilities (b) and there-
fore the consequences being so highly penal the greatest
particularity is required in the proceeding and the slight-
est irregularity will be fatal (c).
The execution of the process of outlawry belongs es-
pecially to the office of sheriff (rf).
If after the preliminary proceedings (?) have been
regularly had the defendant does not appear nor is taken on
or before the fifth county court or day of exaction under
the writ of exigent, judgment of outlawry or if a woman of
waiver is given by the coroners or one of them. For this
purpose one of the coroners must be personally present at
the county court (/). If he fail to attend he is liable to fine
and imprisonment (g).
The calling upon the exigent may be by one coroner and
(a) Brooke's Abridgment Title Process, pi. 172; 14 Henry IV, p.
34, but where there is only one in the county he can act alone, Jenkins,
85, pi. 65, one is sufficient to enter the judgment (for which see Brae-
ton Retorn de Briefs, pi. 42 and 14 Henry IV, 34), but all should
make the entry Ibid. And the judgment of two is good enough though
there are four in the county but all should join in the entry, 4 Ed-
ward FV, 43; and if there are two coroners in the county the judg-
ment of outlawry must be given by both. Hobart, 70; i Hale's Pleas
of the Crown, 417. But Bacon raises a quere whether the act of one
coroner is not sufficient even where more than one should act, 2
Abridgment, 433.
(&) Coke upon Littleton, 128; 2 Rolle's Abridgment, 802; Doctor
and Student Dialogue, 2, Chap. 8.
(c) Jervis on Coroners, 51.
(d) Watson's Sheriff, Chapter, 8.
(?) For a careful and concise statement of just how these pro-
ceedings are taken, see Britton, c i, Sects. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22.
(/) Britton, c 14, Sect. 2.
(0) Jervis on Coroners, 51; Anonymous, Noy, 113 (1605); see,
however, Rastell's Entries, 586.
72 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
the judgment may be pronounced by one, but the entry and
return must be in the name of all (/). It has been said that
the names of the coroners must be subscribed to the judg-
ment of outlawry (*'), but they need not so appear upon
the record of the outlawry (k) if their names are stated
(/), for it will suffice if by the record the judgement appear to
have been pronounced by the coroners. In order that the
judgment may appear from the record to have been pro-
nounced by the coroners, their name of office must be stated
upon the record (m) and if it be not, the judgment will be
erroneous, except in London where the judgment is given by
the recorder in which case the mayor who is coroner need not
be named (n).
Having pronounced the judgment the coroners are
functi officio, the exigent with the proceedings thereon and
the judgment of outlawry being returned by the sheriff (0).
. It would appear from some authorities (p) that a cor-
oner upon an inquisition found before him might award
process of outlawry; but this is doubted by Lord Hale (q)
and we find no instance in comparatively modern times of
such a course having been adopted by a coroner. If the
offender be taken he is committed to jail pursuant to the
statute de officio conoratoris, but if he be not found the cor-
oner returns his inquisition to the next gaol delivery, when,
if the offender having in the meantime been taken be in goal
the justices of gaol delivery proceed against him, but if he
(A) Lambe v. Wiseman, Hobart, 70, but after they pronounce the
judgment, they may stay the return, I Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 417;
2 Id. 85, and see Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, Book 2, cap. 52,
at least two coroners must join in the entry.
(') 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 204; 2 Rolle's Abridgment, 802.
() King v. Yaudel, 4 Term Reports, 542 (1792).
(/) Patrick's Case, Croke's James, 528 (1620) ; King v. Yaudel, 4
Term Reports, 542 (1792).
(m) Bacon's Abridgment Title Outlawry, E. 4.
(n) Coke upon Littleton, 288; Brooke's Abridgment Title Ut-
tlagarius, 31; Puttenham's Case, Dyer, 3173 (1572), City of London's
Case, 8 Coke's Reports, i2ib, 126 (1610) ; 2 Henry VII, 33; Jervis on
Coroners, 51.
(0) King v. Yaudel, 4 Term Reports, 529-530 (1792) ; Jervis on
Coroners, 52.
(p) 27 Assize, 47; Brooke's Abridgment Title Uttlagarius, 38;
Jervis on Coroners, 52.
(q) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 199; Jervis on Coroners, 52.
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS 73
be not in custody the inquisition is certified to the Court of
King' Bench from whence process of outlawry is awarded
against him (r).
If the coroner refuses to pronounce judgment of out-
lawry upon the exigent he may be attached (s), or may be
fined or imprisoned unless he can satisfactorily account for
his absence if his non-appearance be returned by the sheriff
(0-
It has been said that much credit is given to the cor-
oner's record of the judgment in outlawry; that if the sher-
iff return a qrtlntus exactus only upon the exigent and the
coroners upon a certiorari directed to them certify that the
defendant has been outlawed, the return of the sheriff shall
be amended by the certificate upon which the consequences
of outlawry shall attach (M), but the contrary seems to have
been holden by one authority (v} and in another the ex-
tent of this proposition is made the subject of doubt (w).
Sect. 38. The coroner's fourth power according to
Lord Hale (x} is to take the confessions of a felon (y) of
a felony committed in a foreign country (z) and take his
abjuration. The common law on this point also is interest-
ing. "It is to be observed that at common law if a person
accused of any felony (except sacrilege) whether in the
same or any other county for which he was liable to judg-
ment of death and not charged with treason had fled to any
churchyard and within forty days confessed himself guilty
before the coroner and declared all the particular circum-
stances of the offence, and thereupon taken the oath in that
case provided (the substance whereof was that he abjured
(r) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 64 ; Jervis on Coroners, 52.
(j) Anonymous, Noy, 113 (1605).
(0 Rastell's Entries, 586.
(M) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 203; Plume's Case, Latch, 210;
8. c., Palmer, 480 (1628) ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 48, Sect.
27; Jervis on Coroners, 53.
(v) Proctor's Case, Dyer, 223 (1563) ; Jervis on Coroners, 53.
(u>) 38 Edward III, 14; Jervis on Coroners, 53.
(if) 2 Pleas of the Crown, 68.
(y) Mirror, c I, Sect. 13 ; Britton, c I, Sects. 5, 36.
(*) Hale again errs on the side of caution, the coroner can take
confessions of felonies committed not only in England, but even in his
own county, Britton, c I, Sects. 5, 36; (the word evidently means
county), Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, c 52.
74 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
the realm and would depart as soon as possible at the port
which should be assigned him (a) and never return without
leave of the king, etc.) saved his life if he observed the
terms of the oath by going with all convenient speed the
nearest way to the port assigned etc. (a), but he was at-
tainted of felony by such abjuration without more and con-
sequently forfeited his lands, goods, etc." (&).
We learn in Britton (c) that coroners took the con-
fession and abjuration in the presence of the sheriff (d) and
the four next vills before whom the felon should publicly
confess and abjure the realm (). In Lord Buchhurst's case
the coroner was removed and fined f 100 for keeping an in-
quisition in his pocket "for a favor to a felon" (g). If he
imposed an improper (r) inquisition upon the jury he could
be committed (s). If he returned the wrong presentment an
information would be granted against him (f). So too, if
(k) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 44.
(kk) If one be killed in a ville and the coroner makes no enquest
(sic) the ville must be amercied, by Twisden for probably the coroner
had no notice of it. Stiles, 238 pi. 546, and see Staundeford's Pleas of
the Crown, 51.
(/) Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 51, by 3 Edward I "Cor-
oners concealing felonies or not doing their duty through favor to
misdoers shall be imprisoned a year and fined at the pleasure of the
King."
(m) 2 Statutes of the Realm, 511 (1487).
(n) Some 100 s, it is all the same, Staundeford's Pleas of the
Crown, 51; Queen v. Clerk, I Salkeld, 37?. (1702) ; Rex v. Wakefield,
i Strange, 69; Fitzherbert's Abridgment Title Coroners, 292; i Hale's
Pleas of the Crown, 424; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 58; Hale's
Summary, 170.
(0) 3 Statutes of the Realm, 4 (1509), but the scope of the enact-
ment was increased to include the taking of a fee for an inquest upon
the body of a person dead by misadventure, and see Staundeford's
Pleas of the Crown, 51 ; Queen v. Clerk, supra, Hale's Summary, 170.
(p) 4 Statutes of the Realm, 240 (1554), by 25 George, II, he is
removed from office. It is strange also to notice that by I Henry
VII, c. 7, the fine is also imposed "if he do not endeavor."
(9) i Keble, 280 (1662), for if there were an inquest it must be
returned by the certiorari per curiam, Stiles, 238 pi. 546.
(r) What is an improper inquest? See Post discussion of the
Lewis murder case, Sect. 77.
(j) Rex v. Wakefield, I Strange, 69; in Rex v. Scorey, i Leach,
43, the jury were instructed to find murder but found accidental
death, the coroner committed the man for murder and the court of
King's Bench granted a rule nisi for an information against the cor-
oner.
(0 Comerback, 386.
76 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
he failed to appear when called upon in case of sudden death
and the grand inquest (w) found that it was death by mis-
adventure, but the coroner's inquest found otherwise (v).
He was to return his inquest in due time according to law,
or he would be fined for neglect (w).
Of all these neglects the justices of the peace or of
assize inquired. They reported the defaults and extor-
tions of the coroner (#).
But even these penalties; as the fact that there are de-
cided cases on the subject proves, were not sufficient to act
as deterrents. What then could be done in the case of
the coroner's neglect? The justices of Oyer and Terminer
or of the peace or a justice of the gaol delivery might in-
quire (;y). But their presentment was traversable (2). So
the King's Bench might itself inquire or appoint a commis-
sion to inquire, or the grand jury might inquire, but these
so-called inquests were not super visum corporis and could
be transversed (^^).
Fleta gives a very full account of the method by which
the king investigated the doings of his coroners. Although
the method here set out long since became obsolete the ac-
count is of great interest. It is as follows (a) :
"Moreover how fraud on the part of coroners can be
overcome is shown by the statute of Oxford (aa) which is
like this. It is provided that examiners who are to be
(M) Meaning the Grand Jury.
(v) He is to be fined and imprisoned, 3 Edward III, Coron., 292;
2 Male's Pleas of the Crown, 58.
(w) 5 by 3 Henry VII, cap. i ; 2 Statutes of the Realm, 511 ; see
2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 58; but see King v. Lord Buchhurst
(supra).
(*) By' i Henry VIII, cap. 7; 3 Statutes of the Realm, 4 (1509) ;
see 6 Viner's Abridgment, 256.
(y) But it was not properly speaking an inquisition, and they
must inquire openly if they inquire secretly their inquest shall be
quashed, I Burns' Justices, 172; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9,
Sect. 29.
(2) Coke's Pleas of the Crown, cap. 8, p. ssb; I Hale's Pleas of
the Crown, cap. 37, p. 414, and see Langton Case, 37 Eliz. B. R., Mss.
mentioned in i Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 414, and Greeves Case, 1656,
Ibid, and see 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 59.
(zz) Stanlack's Case, i Ventris, 182 s. c. ; i Modern, 82 (1671).
(a) Book i, Chapter 18.
(ao) Whether there was such a statute is a question.
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS 77
appointed to make written records at their own warrants
shall give notice to the sheriff of the place whither they
shall have been summoned; (2) that they shall cause to
come into their presence, at a certain day and place ex-
pressed in their mandate, A coroner of B, the men and those
of the hundreds, the servants and beadles who are now
residing in the bailiwick of the coroner himself or shall have
been at the time when the said A was first made coroner
of the king, whether within the liberty or beyond it (sive
infra libertatem vel extra), and all the clerks with all their
rolls and records for the whole time for which A shall
have been coroner of the king.
Furthermore, when the examiners themselves shall
shall have come they shall both cause the aforesaid rolls
to be sealed, and shall return them, the coroner having ac-
knowledged these said seals, unbroken (to) until the ar-
rival of the itinerant justice to be preserved in safety
unless it shall have been otherwise ordered by a warrant
"Regii mandati" in the meantime; and what is said con-
cerning the coroner shall be known by his successor that
same who shall be charged from the time of his predecessor
the coroner. And this shall be done that the same coroner
or his successors or the clerk may not be able to manufac-
ture anything in the court of the aforesaid circuit in the
case of these rolls.
And afterwards the officers, servants of the bailiwick
and the beadles aforesaid shall swear that they will perform
well and faithfully those things which the aforesaid ex-
aminers shall enjoin upon them on the part of the king
and that they will keep secrecy. And when these officers,
etc., have sworn each bailiff of a hundred and of a liberty
shall be charged separately, (per se), upon whom is shall
be enjoined (i) to have in the presence of the examiners
at a certain day and place all names of the towns and ham-
lets existing in their bailiwick, the aforesaid examiners
being made known and the information furnished being dis-
tinctly rendered (liberatura) ; (2) and to cause to come
into the examiner's presence at that time from each (any)
town eight men, from a lesser town six men and from any
78 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
hamlet, four of the better sort and more acquainted with
the law, excepting the lords of such towns and hamlets,
through whom the examiners themselves shall receive and
take the principal inquiry from twelve prime jurors (6)
from any hundred, liberty and town replying through
twelve, who live under the jurisdiction of the aforesaid
coroner, and (3) (to see) that each of the aforesaid eight,
six and four have his own proper seal and if a lack be found
in the aforesaid towns, lesser towns and hamlets, preventing
the possibility of making the inquiry from free men as sat-
isfactory, then (4) to add to the same from the more dis-
creet and law-experienced villeins having seals. Further-
more, when the examiners shall have come at the said day
and place and the foregoing has been done, then they shall
themselves chose an examiner assigning "per Dominum
Regeni" from the aforesaid eight, six and four men, two
of the better sort and more trained in the law, at their
discretion ; who shall thus take oath, viz. : "You hear"(C and
D, examiners assigned "per Dominum Regeni"} "that I
shall speak the truth and that I shall conceal no truth nor
so far as in me lies shall I permit it to be concealed or
suppressed in your presence on occasion of any promise,
gift, favor, hate, love or affinity nor through any one's
abettance or procuring or in any way shall I omit to speak
truth or make presentation to you upon those matters
which you will enjoin or charge upon me, so help me God,
and these relics, etc., especially upon those matters which I
know or shall have been able to inquire." This same oath
the townsmen and those of the hamlets shall then take indi-
vidually, and by the same oath the twelve shall be charged
afterwards, but the inquisitors themselves hand it over;
and they will deliberate after the swearing in of each man
of the towns (c), lesser towns and hamlets of the hundreds
wapentakes and liberties in the jurisdiction aforesaid existing
and likewise without, but it may be necessary that a capitu-
lary be taken so that thereby they may render themselves
(&) Prime jurors seems to refer to the first men sworn,
(c) It appears from the text that the eight, six and four men
form a sort of assistant examining board to the twelve, a local jury.
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS 79
more certain on the part of the king by firmly enjoining upon
freeman under penalty of exhaeredatio and on villeins un-
der penalty of life imprisonment that they shall not conceal
any part of the truth but fully just as herein it shall have been
found they shall make presentation, which presentation
shall be duplicated in handwriting which duplicates with
their seals appended shall be delivered to the said examiners
and of these duplicates one shall remain within the keeping
of these examiners and the other be delivered to the twelve
jurors so that concerning the articles contained in the same
they may be more fully informed when they shall have been
convened for this purpose.
In the first place they shall make faithful presentation
(i) of all murders, homicides and felonies, by whom, when,
and where on earth, that is, whether on water, in wood, or
plain, in marsh, whether in the town or out, or wheresoever
and howsoever perpetrated during the whole time for which
such A was coroner of the king in those regions; (2),
whether the coroner himself in person shall have gone to
the same in performing his office, or, if by chance he shall
have substituted another in his place, (3) how often, and
who the substitute was.
Likewise (4) if the coroner himself, gratis and with-
out delay, shall have gone to recover treasure, how often
he may have been required for this purpose, or, if he sought
anything or his clerk received anything to do quickly that
office of his which he was bound to do without compensa-
tion, or if he sought delay so that by such means he might
extort money, in that case how often and how much, and
at whose hands he may have received such money.
Likewise (5) if the chattels of felons shall have been
legally appraised as well by his own friends as others and
delivered to a townsman to be guarded or shall have been
indicted in the coroner's roll without regard.
Likewise (6) concerning any gifts given to the cor-
oner for this, viz. : because he took false and hired (inquest)
testimony, for suppressing the trial of any one, appraising
the chattels of any one at less than the true value, or if,
making an inquest in his court concerning property and
80 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
enrollments he shall have caused enrollments to be made
otherwise than in the prescribed form, or if he falsify his
rolls, then in what case and in whose behalf it was attribut-
able to him and to his clerk therefor.
Likewise if he shall have caused any appeals to be en-
rolled falsely or suffered them to be suppressed (murdriri)
or stricken from his rolls or (supersident} omitted or re-
fused to admit or enroll them etc., by force of poverty or
ill will for the plaintiff or by favor on occasion of a gift
or a promise or on account of fear or affinity for any de-
fendant, and (in case such were done) at whose hands.
Likewise if he shall have received anything from the
townsmen among whom he caused to be made his oaths,
appearance and inquests; in that case how often and how
much and at whose hands.
Likewise if any of his men at his appearances and in-
quests shall have taken anything from the bodies of the
dead persons and carried it off, in that case how much and
how often and who did this. Likewise if he caused all
attachments to be made in the accredited manner or not.
Likewise if he caused any one to be attached unjustly
so that he injured him and thus extorted from him in
place of the (guilty) or chargeable party who may have had
the same name, in that case at whose instigation and abett-
ment and how much he received from such injured party
or the manifest procurer of it.
Likewise if he did his office in all cases without delay
and willingly taking nothing from any one, according to
the tenor of the statute.
Likewise, if in any case he shall have made any con-
cealment concerning articles of appeal or caused or procured
their concealment to the detriment of the appellant, the de-
fendant or another on the occasion of gift, fear, affinity,
promise, love or any one's procuring in that case how and by
whom, for what return, on what occasion, how often and
in what cases.
Likewise whether or not (necne) he shall have faith-
fully caused the arrest of bondsmen, runaway from the
people among whom they were sojourning and withdrawn
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS 81
for suspicion of wrong held concerning them, and shall
have caused the same to be enrolled afresh after a thorough
investigation and delivered to the townsmen in whose keep-
ing they have been placed (found) to be kept safely until
the arrival of the circuit (itinerant) justice; and if he shall
not have done this in whole or in part, in that case who de-
livered these things (made free of them} and to what ex-
tent.
Likewise, if he shall not have subtracted any appeal
or complaint, or caused it to be subtracted and made naught
in that case by whose procuring and for how much he
shall have done this and how often.
Likewise, concerning treasure found at any time in
his bailiwick, who found it and how much and to whose
hands it came eventually.
The examiners are required to go to make clearly the
aforesaid investigation from wapentake to wapentake, and
from hundred to hundred as well under the liberty as be-
yond, and from town to town, replying (which town re-
plies) through twelve men. And the presentations of the
jurors being thus taken, with all their seals, (the exam-
iners) shall cause to come into their presence, at once,
twelve men of the better, richer and more discreet sort and
shall charge them with hands upon the Bible (tactis sacrar
sanctis) faithfully to present the truth concerning the
aforesaid capitaries.
And if the examiners shall have suspected any conceal-
ment, it shall be permitted then through twenty-four jurors
chosen from the whole body of the county and charged ac-
cording to the aforesaid capitularies, to commit all or any
concealing the truth in the forgoing matters.
Furthermore, if any coroner, clerk, juror or bailiff shall
happen to be convicted in their court in the aforesaid cases,
such shall be delivered to the sheriff who shall guard them
until they shall have been formally delivered through suf-
ficient mancipators, after satisfaction made to the king, of
fraud, perjury and falsifying when the king may be willing
to pronounce thereupon, and upon such the king shall be per-
mitted at will to affix a heavy penalty not expressed. Given
at Oxford, etc.
Sect. 40. The office of coroner seems in ancient times
to have been more elevated than today. They acted with
the sheriff in the county court, holding a counter roll (c)
and so acting as a check on the sheriff (d), for the coroner's
roll was of more authority than his. They kept a record
of all fines and amercements in the sheriff's court
(e). Fleta even goes so far as to call the county court,
the court of the sheriff and the coroner (/) while Brit-
ton says (#) that in counties there is a twofold court,
one of the pleas of the king's peace which is held by the cor-
oners and suitors and of which the coroners only have
record, the other (for civil actions) in which the suitors
are judges and have no record out of their court except
by consent of the parties. The rolls exhibited by the Sel-
den Society use the words Crown Pleas and Pleas of the
Coroner interchangeably (i).
On the criminal side of this court the sheriff held
a counter roll (fc) though he did not act judicially and an
appeal commenced before the coroner alone was deemed
sufficient (/), for the coroner could receive an appeal with-
out the concurrence of any other officer (m). A certiorari
to the coroner alone was sufficient (n) for the coroner was
the judge, but the certiorari was more usually to the coroner
and the sheriff by the statute of Westminster I, chapter 10.
But never to the sheriff alone, neither for appeals nor for
outlawries, unless in London (0). Some say that the
(c) Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, Book 2, cap. 51.
(d) Gilbert's Historical View of the Exchequer, 80; see Article
by Charles Gross, 7 Political Science Quarterly, 656.
(e) Gilbert's Historical View of the Exchequer, 80.
(/) fol. 40.
(g) Book i, Sect. 135.
(t) And see Select Coroners Rolls, pp. 34-36, and Gross's Intro-
duction, p XXV.
(*) 34 Edward III, 146; Register, 2843; Fleta, Book i, cap. 18,
Sect, i; Proctor's Case, Dyer, 223b (1563), by 3 Henry VII.
(/) 4 Henry VI, 16; contra, Brooke's Abridgment Title Appeals
44, and see 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 39.
(m) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 67; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the
Crown, c 9, Sect. 39; Hale's Summary, 172.
(n) 4 Henry VI, i6a, Proctor's Case, Dyer, 222b (1563).
(0) Puttenham's Case, Dyer, 3i7a; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown,
67.
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS S3
certiorari must be directed to both the sheriff and the
coroner (/>), but others say the coroner is sole judge of the
court (#). Remnants of these earlier powers of the
coroner lingered many centuries. He could administer
oaths (&), which he commonly did to the jury and to
witnesses. He had the power to commit (/). Indeed he
might be said to have been a committing magistrate (w).
He probably had power to exclude from his presence those
whom he deemed it proper (n) to exclude, without doubt
might bind any person to the peace who made an affray in
his presence (0) and was vested with power to forcibly
remove those who obstructed him in the performance of
his duties (/>). It was said to be a misdemeanor to ob-
struct the coroner or his jury in the view or inquiry (q).
His proceedings were considered judicial in their nature
(r) and could not be performed by deputy (5), even cor-
oners virtute cartae sive commissionis could not delegate
their authority (f), except the coroner of the admiralty
(). They must even style themselves "coroner" in their
return or their inquisitions were void (v). So where one
(/>) 14 Henry IV, isb, 16; Brooke's Abridgment Title Appeals, 44;
2 Coke's Institutes, 176; Staunde ford's Pleas of the Crown, 64; 2 Hale's
Pleas of the Crown, 67-70; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect.
42.
(q) 2 Coke's Institutes, 176; 4 Henry VI, 16; Brooke's Abridg-
ment Title Appeals, 44; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 39,
but see contra, 17 Assize, 5; Brooke's Abridgment Title Appeals, 56;
Hale's Summary, 172; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 52-64.
() Mirror, c i, Sect. 13.
(/) See Post, Sect. 42 for a fuller discussion of this topic.
(m) Jervis on Coroners, 31; Mirror, c i, Sect. 13; Britton, f 8;
Lamb Eiren, 378.
(n) See Post, Sect. 54 for a fuller discussion of this subject.
(0) 2 Bacon's Abridgment, 424, note c.
(p) Jervis on Coroners, 271.
(g) Umfreville citing Calth. M. S., and see Jervis on Coroners,
270; an injunction was secured from the privy council commanding
the coroner not to take his inquiry without the assistance of a
justice of the peace whereupon the coroner ended his inquiry and upon
a motion for prohibition it was held the injunction was against the law.
(r) See Post, Sect. 54.
(j) See Post, Sect 41.
(0 See ante, Sect. 20.
() Ante, Sect. 19.
(v) Ante, Sect. 23.
84 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
who sat was not a coroner, the whole proceeding was
quashed upon a writ of error (;). The sheriff and
bailiffs must attend him if he so demanded (#). In other
words the court of the coroner was still a court of record
(y).
Sect. 41. The coroner's office being a judicial one, it
follows as a matter of course that such duties as are in their
nature judicial must be exercised by the coroner and not
by another (2) as Britton says (a), coroners are prohibited
from making substitutes (&), and if anything be done by
such a substitute, it is void (bb). But the coroner of the
admiralty forms an exception to this otherwise general
rule (c).
In Dearing's case (d) Lord Berkley's coroner failed
to state in his return how Lord Berkley came to make him
coroner, and therefore the return was quashed. This is
an additional reason why none but the coroner can hold the
inquest or even view the body (?), Jervis puts the reason
for the rule very clearly, saying (/) : "But without ref-
erence to authority it is clear from principle that the
power of the coroner could not at common law be deputed,
being an office of trust, one which concerns the public
administration of justice and the revenue of the crown,
into which the coroner is elected from his presumed quali-
(w) The Coroners Case, Jenkins, 90 pi., 74.
(x) Britton, c i, Sect. 43.
(y) 4 Coke's Institutes, 271 ; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 53 ; 4
Blackstone's Commentaries, 274; Comyns Digest Title Officer, G. 5.
(*) A coroner may appoint a deputy without deed, Clecott v.
Dennys, Croke's Elizabeth, 67 (1588), but the deputy may not hold
inquests. Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 51.
(o) C i, Sect. 3.
(&) Except the Lord Steward and Justices of Ireland and Chester.
(b&) "Be it even an abjuration or of outlawry."
(c) 2 Burn's Justices, 29 (Edition of 1845).
(rf) Croke's Elizabeth, 193, pi., 7, and see Penners Case, Ibid, 31,
pi., 4.
(*)By th e Statute of Exeter (14 Edward I) see Fitzherbert's
Abridgment Title Justices, 166; Jervis on Coroners, 5-6 and 71;
Crompton's Justices, f 2273, 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 58. But
note also that Professor Gross says the Statute of Exeter is without
date (Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XXV, it would seem it
is in force in Pennsylvania, therefore), and is of doubtful authority.
(/) Coroners, 72.
THE FUNCTIONS OF CORONERS 85
fications to discharge the important duties belonging to it.
These qualifications are personal and could not be dele-
gated."
Sect. 42. Another power of the coroner which is inci-
dent to his authority as a court of record, was the power to
commit. While this was undoubtedly within the power
of the coroner, the extent of this authority was very ill
defined and uncertain. He undoubtedly had the power to
commit those who made an affray in his presence (g).
He probably also might commit any person who offered
obstruction to the due administration of justice (h). But
his powers beyond these were very doubtful. Jervis says
(hh), he "may cause felons to be apprehended, also bur-
glars and robbers as to whom no inquisition can be taken
Some authorities say he had the power to commit those
found guilty (i), while others seem to be of opinion that
he only had authority to record in order that others might
punish (fc). Undoubtedly he could compel the first finders
of a dead body to produce pledges (/), unless the deceased
had had the rites of the church (w). Where deliberate
murder was committed, the neighbors were required to
find pledges (w). In Henry IPs time the coroner could
not allow a person accused, either as principal or accessory,
to remain out of jail (0). In Granville's time, there was a
special writ obtainable as a matter of royal favor to in-
quire whether the party was justly accused. It was known
as the writ de odio et atya and directed the coroner to
(g) Crom. 6, Lamb b. I, c. 3; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 8,
Sect. 5 ; 2 Bacon's Abridgment, 424, note c.
(/) Jervis on Coroners, 271.
(A/t) Coroners, p. 31; see Mirror, c i, Sect. 13; Britton, f 8; Lamb
Eiren, 378.
(i) i Blackstone's Commentaries, 348; see 4 Edward I, Sect, i;
Britton. c i. Sect. 43.
(k) Mirror, c i, Sect. 13; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 64.
(/) Coroners Rolls, Selden Society, pp. 1-2-3-4-5, etc., Bracton,
f. I2ib; i Statutes of the Realm, 40; Britton, c. i Sect. 24; 4 Edward
I, Sect. I.
m) 30 and 31 Edward I, 522; Bracton, fol. 135.
(n) Coroners Rolls, Selden Society, 14-15-24, etc.
(0) Sir Travis Twiss's Introduction to Bracton.
86 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
inquire if the inquest had not so found from spite or
hatred (/>).
If any were present at the death and not guilty, they
were to be bound over to the next gaol delivery and their
names recorded on the roll, the idea being that if evi-
dence were found against them they might be proceeded
against and if not they might be used as witnesses (g).
The coroner had power to take a manslayer before he took
the inquest, for the inquest sometimes was long and the
guilty might escape (r). In ancient times, if the parties
found guilty by the inquest were not found they were to
be proceeded against to outlawry (.?). But Hale says
"but now it is different, the coroner doth not proceed to out-
seems clear that the security taken by him for keeping the
lawry, but certifies it to the next gaol delivery who are
to proceed against the offenders if they are in gaol, if not
to certify it to the B. R. who proceed to outlawry " (f).
Hawkins takes a very narrow view of the power of the
coroner in this direction. He says, "but it seems the better
opinion that he hath no authority to grant process and it
seems clear that the security taken by him for keeping the
peace (except only when it is taken by him as a judge of
his own court for an affray done in such court) is not to
be looked upon as a recognizance, but as an obligation,
because it is not taken by one who acts as a judge of rec-
ord or by the king's commission as all recognizances ought
to be" O).
Sect. 43. We have already seen (z/) that the office of
coroner was a highly honorable one. It was an office where
the duties were paid for only by the glory (w). The stat-
ute of fourth Edward I provides "that no coroner demand
or take anything to do his office upon pain of great for-
(/>) Chapter 36, of the Charter of Liberties of Henry III, makes
this writ gratuitous, Fleta goes to considerable length about this writ,
see Appendix.
(). Some expressly say "killed by felony
or misadventure" (), and these he let by main-
prize (g), unless the deceased had had rites of the Church
(r), all the circumstances relative to the death (j) and all
things that occasioned it, whether it came from God or man
(/) 3 Bulstrode, 173.
(g) The Welchmen's Case, Popham, 209 (1656), s. c. Latch, 166
(1662) ; see 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 25.
(h) 2 Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 25.
(i) Rex v. Mackalley, 9 Coke's Reports, 666 ( 1612) ; 2 Burn's Jus-
tices, 30; Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris, 177; Jervis, p. 279. If it is
held on Sunday it is void, King v. Bunney, 2 Saunders, 291.
(/) 22 Assize, 94; Bracton, f. I2ib; 4 Edward I, I Statutes of the
Realm, 40.
(jfe) 22 Assize, 94; Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13; Britton, c. I, Sect. 9.
(/) 22 Assize, 94.
(m) Fleta Lib. II, cap. 25, Sect. 2.
() 22 Assize, 94; 6 Viner's Abridgment, 243; 4 Edward I, supra;
Britton, c. i, Sect. 24; Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13, qualifies this to cases
where the death was due to accident, Fleta, Lib. II, cap. 25, Sect. 2.
(o) 22 Assize, 94; Bracton, f. I2ib; 4 Edward I, supra; Britton,
c. i, Sect. 24; Fleta, Lib. II, cap. 25, Sect. 2.
(P) 22 Assize, 94; Bracton, f. I2ib; Britton, c. i, Sect. 24; 4 Ed-
ward I, supra, who says they should note also of what discretion they
are.
(q) 22 Assize, 94; 4 Edward I, supra; Fleta, Lib. 2, cap. 25, Sects.
4 and 6.
(r) 30 and 31 Edward I, 522, and see Bracton, f. 135.
(s) Keilw., 61-67 Queen v. Clerk, Salkeld, 377 (1702) ; Mir-
ror, c. i, Sect 13; Britton, c. I, Sect. 12; Fitzherbert's Abridgment,
title Coroners, 292; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 51; i Hale's
Pleas of the Crown, 422-4; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 58-62; 2
Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 28; Fleta, Lib. II, cap. 25,
Sect. 2.
94 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
(f). He was to find out if the man was killed, or if he killed
himself (u), or if the death were caused by accident which
might be determined by the hurts on the body (z/). Thus,
if the accident happened by drowning, whether it was in the
sea or in fresh water, and if in the latter, whether in a mote
or ditch, and how it came to pass that the person was
drowned (w), who owned the vessel if he fell from a ves-
sel, and if the drowning was in a well, the inquiry should
be as to who owned the well (#), and whether it was dan-
gerous to the community (3;). If the death was caused by
a fall, the inquiry should be whether it was from a mill, a
horse, or a tree (z), and how the fall occurred (a). If from
a mill, what things were moving in the mill should be ascer-
tained, who owned it and the value of the utensils moving
toward the death, in order to determine the value of the
deodand (b}. If the accident resulted in a killing, the
coroner should inquire if it were done by a man, a woman,
a beast, or a thing (c). If done by a beast, whether it was
a dog or other beast and whether set on by any man (d).
If the death was, done by killing, the coroner should inquire
whether by felony or misadventure, or se defendo, who
caused the death, whether he was killed at a
wrestling match, or tavern or other assembly (e\ and the
manner of the killing (/), whether he was killed in a house
or in the fields (g), if he were killed, where found, or killed
(<) Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13, from famine, poverty or common pesti-
lence; with or without malice prepense, Britton, c. I, Sect. 26.
() Anonymous Jenkins, 202, in pi. 24; Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13;
Britton, c. i, Sect. 13.
(v) 4 Edward I, i Statutes of the Realm, 29.
(w) Britton, c. i, Sect. 26; c. i, Sect. 2.
(*) Ibid, c. i, Sect. 3.
(y) The reason being that the owner was to be amerced at the
presentment and obliged to fill it up. Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris.
(*) Britton, c. i, Sect. 27.
(a) King v. Cross, Keble, 744 (1664).
(fr) Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13.
(c) Britton, c. i, Sect. 29.
(d) Britton, c. i, Sect. 13.
(e) 3 Henry VII, c. I, Sect. 2; 2 Statutes of the Realm, 510 (1487) ;
Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13 ; Bracton, f . i2ib, 4 Edward I, supra.
Britton, c. i, Sect. 10; see Fleta Book, 2 cap. 25.
(/) Britton, c. I, Sect. 10.
(g) Bracton, f. I2ib; 4 Edward I (supra).
CORONERS' INQUESTS IN ENGLAND 95
elsewhere and brought there (h), and should trace his steps
and find where he lodged the night before, and whether he
was known or unknown (t), and whether any one had
threatened his life or limb (&), and if so, who were their
pledges to keep the peace (/). If it was found to be mur-
der, the coroner ascertained who were the aiders (m),
abbettors and consenters (n), and who were present when
the murder was committed (0), if the hue and cry were
raised (/>), who were accessories before the fact (q),
but not the accessories after the fact (r), and whether prin-
cipals fled (s), if not, they were to be seized and turned
over to the sheriff .(t). In the case of murder or man-
slaughter, the coroner should inquire of all the goods and
chattels, lands and tenements (u), of the principals and ac-
(&) Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13.
(i) Bracton, f. I2ib; 4 Edward I, supra; Fleta Book i, Chapter 25,
Sect. 6; Fleta tells us the host of the tavern where he last lodged is
to be attached, ibid.
(&) Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13; Britton, c. i, Sect. 14.
(/) Britton, c. i, Sect. 14.
(m) Evidently the authorities refer to those present aiding, abet-
ting and counselling, though they do not say so; see 2 Hale's Pleas of
the Crown, 63.
(n) 3 Henry VII, c. I, Sect. 2; 2 Statutes of the Realm, 510 (1487) ;
Bracton, f. I2ib; Britton, c. i, Sect. 10; Hale expressly says those
present and makes a distinct class of accessories, 2 Tleas of the Crown,
63.
(o) 3 Henry VII, c. I, Sect. 2, supra; both young and old males
and females, Britton, c. i, Sect. 10.
(/>) Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13.
(q) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 63; 4 Henry VII, i8b; Daliston,
32 pi 19; Jenks, 177 pi. 54.
(r) See infra, Anon. Moore, 29 pi. 95; 4 Edward I, Sect. 2; 3
Henry VII, c. i ; 4 Henry VII, 17; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown,
183 ; Britton says he is to inquire as to accessories after the fact, c. i,
Sect. 10, and such cases are to be found, Selden Society's "Select
Coroners Rolls," 30; but from the nature of the coroners' duies such
an inquiry is no proper part of it. Therefore "fugam fecit" of one
accessory after the fact is void, Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown,
183-4. See 4 Henry VII, i8b.
(j) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 63; Britton, c. i, Sect. 12, for
if they find he fled, "nay though the petit jury upon his trial find
him not guilty nor that he fled, yet this inquisition before the coroner
shall cause a forfeiture of his goods for it is not traversable." Anony-
mous, Dyer, 238b; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, i83b; I Hale's
Pleas of the Crown, 363-417; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 63; Fleta,
Lib. II, cap. 25, Sects. 2 and 7.
(0 Fleta, Lib. 2, cap. 25, Sects. 3 and 5.
() Supra, note (j) ; 4 Edward I, supra; Britton, c. I, Sects. 13
and 22; Fleta says this is only done where he had fled, Book 2, cap.
25, Sect. 7.
96 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
ccssories, and they had to be appraised and sold and the
money turned over to the township to keep (z/). If the
person died in prison, the coroner must inquire whether
he died from long imprisonment or by torture (w).
But the scope of the coroner's inquest was even broader
than this. Not only was he to inquire of the crime where
crime had been committed, but he had a more general au-
thority to inquire into the reason of all deaths by misad-
venture and prevent a repetition thereof. Thus, where a
man fell through a bridge, the inquest might find there was a
nuisance (.*), and if a person be drowned in a pit, the cor-
oner could command the vill to stop . it and if it be not
done the vill might be amerced in eyre or before the jus-
tices of gaol delivery (2).
Sect. 49. The inquest must be a good one, if it were
not, it was the duty of the coroner to take another (s).
If the coroner had reason to suspect that the truth was
concealed or not fully investigated he was to cause another
inquest to be taken (J), but this was done only with great-
est caution. If the first was informal, a second could be
taken and the body could be disinterred in order that it
be taken super visum corporis (M). It was considered
better practice, however, to obtain leave of court if the body
had already been buried (z/). So if the coroner took an
(v) Britton, f. 7; 4 Edward I; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 63;
where the learned author says: "How far is this altered by I Richard
III, cap. 3"? See I Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 365, cap. 27.
(w) Mirror, c. I, Sect. 13.
(T) Hall's Case, Allen, 51 (1648), and the vill has been amerced
had it not been that they did not find that the vill was bound to repair
it; and see Keilw., 61.
(*) 8 Edward II, Corpn. 416. Fleta tells us the owner should be
fined and enjoined to provide guards, lib. I, cap. 25, Sect. 10.
(s) I Strange, 22-533; Queen v. Clerk, i Salkeld, 377 (1702);
Staunde ford's Pleas of the Crown, Book 2, cap. 52.
(0 Britton, c. I, Sect. u. This was done in 1270, Selden Society,
"Select Coroners Rolls," 25.
() Where the first inquest was informal, all the coroners fourteen
days afterwards took the body up and held the inquisition over again
on the suggestion of Sergeant Janney, whose servant had been killed,
and the second inquest was held valid, 2 Richard III, 2 pi. 5, and
vide 21, Edward IV, 70-71, and Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown,
Book 2, cap. 52.
(v) Where the body has been buried and the inquest is afterwards
quashed, there must be leave of court to take it up, Berkley's Case, 2
CORONERS' INQUESTS IN ENGLAND 97
inquisition without view of the body and afterwards took
another super visum corporis, the second was good, for the
first was absolutely void (w). But if the first inquest was
good and afterwards another coroner took another in-
quisition, the second was absolutely void because the first
was good (x}. But once the inquest had been filed it was
not traversable (y). The proper practice to get it off the
record seems to have been to petition for a melius in-
quirendum and the petition must be accompanied by an
affidavit of a male se gessit on the part of the coroner (2).
Sect. 50. Having now considered the subject-matter
of the inquisition, the question naturally arises as to how it
was taken. The first factor in the inquest was the coroner
whose duties in this regard we have considered, the second
factor was the jury. When notified of the necessity to act,
the coroner issued a precept to the sheriff, constable or
bailiff, as the case might be, to summon a jury (a). If
there was any default either by the constable or the jurors,
the coroner made a record of it, and they were amerced;
"anciently," says Lord Hale, "before the justices in eyre,
Sid. 101, I Salk. 377. In Rex v. Saunders, I Strange, 167 (1719), the
Court said the coroner could not take the body up without leave of
court. In Anonymous, i Strange, 533 (1723), the Court granted a
rule for the coroner of Wenlock, in the County of Salop, to take up
a body in order for a new inquisition, the former having been quashed.
Indeed, in King v. Bunney, Carthew 72, i Salk. 190, it was decided an
inquest might be held a year after the death and still be good, but it
was agreed that the coroner is not justified in disinterring a body
which has been buried for more than a year, "for it is a common
nuisance and insufferable." But note an inquest taken a year after
the body was buried has been received and filed, and this seems to be
in the discretion of the Court, I Str. 22-533, I Salk. 377.
(;) Wingfield's Case, 21 Edward IV, 70-71 (2 Kale's Pleas of the
Crown, 59).
(x) Richard II, coron. 107; Cromp. Just., 229; 2 Hale's Pleas
of the Crown, 59; Fitzherbert, 107; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown,
Book 2, cap. 52.
(v) King v. Heatherfall, 3 Modern, 80; though this has been made
a subject of gravest doubt, Post, Sect. 58. The proper practice is said
to be to move to quash the inquest before it is filed. But the reason
given is doubtful, a melius inquiriendum, not being super visum cor-
Poris, is traversable ; but so is the coroner's return, Post, Sect. 58.
(2) Miles Berkley's Case, 2 Siderfen, 90-101-144, s. c. ; 2 Keble,
859; King v. Heatherfall, 3 Modern, 80; 4 Coke's Reports, 57; Croke's
Elizabeth, 371; King v. Bunney, Carth 72 I Salkeld. 190; Queen v.
Clerk, i Salkeld, 377; Rex v. Saunders, Strange, 107; Anonymous,
Strange, 533.
(a) See ante, Sect. 26.
98 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
but now before the justices of gaol delivery" (fc). The
coroner, it would seem, could not fine the jurors or con-
stables for non appearance, but cotdd only present his
record to the sessions (c).
The coroner made his inquest by four vills (d), yet
he might summon more in his discretion and probably
abused this power. Lord Coke tells us (e) the "coroner
would summon many townships, sometimes the whole hun-
dred where twelve would serve to make the inquiry" (/).
To remedy this the statute of Marlbridge (1267) in chap-
ter 24, provides :
"The justices in eyre from henceforth shall not amerce
townships in their circuits because all being twelve years
old came not afore the sheriffs and coroners to take an in-
quiry of robberies, burnings of houses, or other things per-
taining to the Crown so that there come sufficient out of
those towns by whom such inquests may be made full
except enquests for the death of a man whereat all being
twelve years of age ought to appear unless they have reason-
able cause for absence" (0).
Sect. 51. All persons who were summoned were
bound to appear. No particular qualifications by estate was
necessary to those who had the right and duty to take part
in the inquest (h). The jurors were not challengeable by
either party (i), but it was deemed wiser to admit such
challenges as the parties desired to make, as we shall see
later. The jurors were, however, required to be probi et
(b) 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 59.
(c) Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13.
(d) See Post, Sects. 51, 52.
(e) 2 Institutes, 147.
(/) A case dated 1338, where four townships were amerced for not
coming, appears in Select Coroners Rolls, 42.
(g) i Statutes of the Realm, 25 (1267).
(/) Jervis on Coroners, 252. In 1305, the king ordered an inquiry
whether the coroners put poor people on the jury to spare the rich,
Political Science Quarterly, 656 (1892) ; where the inquest was to be
had over one who died in prison, the jury was to be composed of six
laymen and six prisoners, Jervis, 39; Umfreville, 213.
(i) Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13; Britton, f. 6a; Withipole's Case, Croke's
Charles, 134; Jones, 108-9; Ley., 81 (1628) ; Crompton's Justices, 226b.
CORONERS' INQUESTS IN ENGLAND 99
legalis homines (&). All men are presumed to be such (/),
but the contrary could be shown (m). Aliens, convicts and
outlaws are not probi et legalis, and it would seem that if
any such were impannelled on the coroner's inquest it would
be a good plea to avoid the inquisition (n). In the case of
William Withipole (0} it was pleaded, to the coroner's
inquisition, upon the statute of II Henry IV, chapter 9,
that several of the jury were nominated by the foreman two
were outlaws in actions of debt; upon which it was agreed
by the several justices and barons that the statute applied
to inquests before the coroner and that an outlaw in per-
sonal actions was not probus et legalis homo to be sworn on
an inquest and might be challenged for that cause (/>).
The point was not, however, judicially determined, for
the case went off on other grounds, but it is deserving of
consideration inasmuch as it shows that outlaws in actions
personal are not probi et legalis (g). It would seem, there-
fore, although it is agreed that jurors upon inquests are
not challengeable (r) to be advisable to reject from cor-
oner's juries, persons under any of these disabilities and to
allow a challenge properly made; for not swearing of a
juryman is of less consequence than the Irisk and hazard of
a plea to the inquisition. Jurors ought also to be house-
holders and to be persons who are indifferent to the subject
matter of the inquiry (j), but if they were not the inquest
was not void therefor. Their number was immaterial
provided twelve agreed (f ) but if there were less than twelve
the inquisition was bad (w).
(k) Lord Raymond, 1303, for if an indictment be made by a jury
one of whom is not probus (e. g., an outlaw), it is void, 3 Coke's Insti-
tutes, 34. See i Wms. Saunders, 363.
(/) Stephens' Digest of Criminal Procedure, Art. 212; 4 Justices
of the Peace (Eng.), 535, quoting Coke, but without citation.
(m) Stephens' Digest of Criminal Procedure, Article 212.
(n) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 155.
(0) Croke's Charles, 134-147; Jones, 198-9; Ley, 81 (1628).
(P) See 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 59.
(9) The inquisition was quashed.
(r) Mirror, c. i, Sect. 13; Britton, c. 2, Sect, n (Nichols Edition).
(j) Fortescue de Laudibus, c. 25.
(0 Smith's Case, Comberback, 386 (1697).
(u) Cobat's Case, i Hale's Pleas of the Crown, :6r, note.
100 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
Although by the statute de officio coronatore (v) the
coroner is directed to summon his jury out of the four,
five or six next adjacent townships and by the ancient
practice it is usually so expressed in the inquisition, yet that
statute being merely directory, the rule did not always pre-
vail, and no precise number of vills was necessary; the
neighborhood being supposed to be the best judge of the
fact to be inquired into; for which reason an inquisition was
good if it purported upon its face to have been taken by
jurors from the country at large (w), for the court would
intend that the inquisition was of the four next vills and
according to the statute. The coroner was not bound to re-
turn particularly that the vills are "proxime adjecentium"
(y), but the contrary might be shown (2}.
In Rex v. Crosse (a) it was objected "that the cor-
oner's inquisition super visum corporis did not purport to
have been taken according to the statute de officio corona-
tore * * * by the oaths of those of the next vills but by
men of the parish of Axminster," but the exception was
overruled. The same exception was taken and overruled
in Barclee's case (fc) and since the case of Sir John Pettys
(c) where the inquisition was taken by a jury "de civitate
Norwici" and Twisden, J. (d) overruled the motion to
quash, no similar exception has been taken (e).
Over this meeting of the four vills the coroner presided
(/). The jury were judges of the facts and the coroner had
no right to instruct them thereon, but on the law he could
instruct them (#) and they were bound to pay strict at-
(v) i Statutes of the Realm, 40.
(w) Jervis on Coroners, 38; but, contra, Welchmen's Case, Pop-
ham, 209 (1656) ; s. c. Latch, 166 (1662) ; Sed. quare. See 2 Coke's In-
stitutes, 354.
(y) i Siderfen, 204 (1664); King v. Cross, Popham, 210 (1656);
sec Bntton, f. 7a.
(*) Berkley's Case, 2 Siderfen, 90-101-144 (1658) ; see Welchmen's
Case, Popham, 209; s. c. Latch, 166 (1662).
(a) i Siderfen, 204; i Keble, 723.
(&) 2 Siderfen, 144.
(c) 2 Keble, 705-7335 also George Bradbury, MS.
().
As we shall see later the jury was composed of twelve
men and four vills (g) in early times (r). Just what the
relation of these two constituents was, it is difficult to as-
certain. We are told that if the jury were not unanimous
the coroner took their poll and if twelve agreed that was the
(/) Vaughan's Reports, 160.
(i) Umfrevilles Lex Coronatoris, 187; Jervis on Coroners, 257;
Britton, c. i, Sect. 6. The form of oath is given in the Mirror, c. i,
Sect. 13. It is too lengthy to be here set out, especially as it is now
obsolete. It appears as an appendix.
(k) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 60.
(/) Jervis on Coroners, 256. But by 6 and 7 Victoria, c. 83, Sect.
2, they need not view the body at the same time with the coroner, by
Reg. v. Ingham, 5 Best and Smith 257, or be sworn super visum corporis.
(m) For only the coroner can take the inquest, ante, Sect. 41;
and see Rex v. Ferrand, 2 Barnwell & Alderson, 260.
(n) Jervis on Coroners, 257.
(/>) Jervis on Coroners, 258.
(q) Select Coroners Rolls, 40-41, the number of the jury was
indeterminate, at Oxford in 1297-1307, 22 to 30 served on the jury.
Rogers' Documents, 150-168, 12, 13, 15, 21 at Wallingford Hist. MSS.
Com. VI, 583, ibid.
(r) 1338, 1365, respectively, are the dates of the two cases above
quoted.
102 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
verdict of the jury, but if no twelve could agree they were
to be kept without meat, drink or fire until twelve did
agree (s). If they still did not agree the coroner could
not take the verdict, but they should be fined (/) In
Travener's case (M) the jury refused to give up their ver-
dict, so the coroner adjourned them from time to time and
from place to place; Fleming, C. J., hearing of the case,
wrote to the coroner not to take a verdict of them, where-
upon the coroner went to assize at Hertford and for his
discharge acquainted the judges with it and the jurors were
fined and the indictment was taken and the court commended
the coroner for the care he had taken in the business (v}. In
view of the composition of the jury it is not strange to
find it recorded in Britton (TV) that the coroner shall not
alter his enrollment on account of any contrariety in their
verdicts. Umfreville thus annotates this paragraph:
This paragraph is darkly expressed, but it is only to
be enlightened by guess. Does he mean other jurors or
other evidence? From the exclusion of the paragraph it
might seem to mean another jury, but this cannot be for the
coroner could not summon a second jury. It must refer
to the different opinion of the different vills, which Um-
freville tells us often caused adjournments of the inquests
and made further evidence necessary. When they could
not agree, then the vills were separated and questioned and
the verdict of each vill taken and final verdict of the in-
quest was the one in which the majority agreed.
What happened if they finally could not agree does
not appear ever to have been determined (x) but in prac-
tice that never did. We have indeed one case where they
did not agree in 1270, two of the townships agreeing and
two refusing to give a verdict, saying they knew nothing
about the matter
(s) Jcrvis on Coroners, 258.
(0 Travener's Case, 3 Bulstrode, 173.
() 3 Bulstrode, 173.
(v) See Comberback, 368.
(w) C. i, Sect. n.
(*) Stephens' Digest of Criminal Procedure, Article 227.
(y) Select Coroners Rolls, Selden Society, Vol. 9, p. 25.
CORONERS' INQUESTS IN ENGLAND 103
The coroner was bound to accept such presentment as
the jury made (2) and should never alter his enrollment
of their verdict (22}. Therefore in a case in which after
the jury had been sworn, the coroner took some of them
off and they found a verdict of non compos mentis, although
the evidence was very strong that it should have been felo
de se, Holt, C. J., quashed the inquisition and said there
ought to be an information against the coroner (a). The cor-
oner cannot, by way of punishment for not finding according
to the evidence, adjourn the jury to places at a great dis-
tance from where the fact was committed, but it has been
held an adjournment to assize is proper (6).
There is, of course, the old question as to whether the
jury has a right to find contrary to their instructions, but
in accordance with moral right. A discussion of that
question belongs properly to a work upon juries in general,
and not to a discussion of the office and duties of coroner,
bearing in mind the remark of Littleton "If the inquest will
take upon them the knowledge of the law they may give
their verdict generally" (c), and that on the whole the im-
mediate and direct right of deciding upon questions of law
is entrusted to the court while the jury is at most only in-
cidental (d) and also remembering that if the coroner's
jury usurp his powers and take upon themselves to find
the law and the facts, there is no method whereby to punish
them if their finding is improper (e). The writ of at-
taint did not extend to criminal cases nor to inquests of
office (/). As has been said the jury could be fined in such
(z) Smith Case, Comberback, 383 (1697) ; Alderman's Case, 2
Levinz, 152 s. c. ; sub nom Rex v. Alderman, i Ventris, 278; sub nom
Anonymous, Freeman, 419-433.
(ez) Where a coroner inserted in the inquest that the jury found
three persons guilty of murder, where they in fact found but one, he
was adjudged to have committed forgery, indicted and found guilty,
Fleta, Book 2, cap. 25, Sect. 3.
(a) King v. Stukeley, 12 Modern, 423 (1702).
(6) Per Holt, C. J., Smith's Case, Comberback, 383 (1697).
(c) Coke upon Littleton, 228.
(d) Hargrave & Butler's note, ubi supra.
(*) Jervis on Coroners, 256.
(/) Comyns' Digest, title Attaint B.
104 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
a case (0), but it would seem to be an exercise of their
judicial office for which they would not be accountable (h}.
The relation of the coroner's jury to the petit jury
is most interesting. Gross discusses it at length in his In-
troduction to Select Coroner's Rolls he says, in effect (i).
First, it is to be noted the word by which the coroners'
court is called "hujuisitis" which is a generic word in its
origin, referring to a new system of procedure and was
therefore applicable to all juries whether judicial or admin-
istrative. The composition of the coroner's jury in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries varied somewhat in
different localities and different times. Most commonly it
consisted wholly or in part of a representation from four
neighboring townships (villatate} namely that in which
the body was found or the death occurred and the three
nearest vills. Sometimes the jury was taken from five and
less, frequently, from three, six or eight. The most com-
mon form of inquest- jury mentioned in the Selden Rolls
is that in which the verdict is found by twelve men together
with four neighboring townships or tithings, the twelve
men probably representing the whole hundred. The four
vills and the twelve men seem often to have been regarded
as two distinct bodies; their verdicts seem to have been
given separately. Then again, each vill could make its own
statement or the vills could find a verdict collectively and
severally. The number of persons from each villata seems
to have been indeterminate; it was regulated by no definite
rule or principle, as many were summoned as were deemed
sufficient for the inquest. In most of the cases where the
number is stated, each township sent its reeve and four
men, the whole jury consisting of thirty-two persons. Many
inquests were, however, held "per XII juratores" etc.
These often came from the four neighboring vills.
"The inquest was sometimes held before more than
one coroner. In Cambridgeshire the bailiff of the hundred
summoned the jury and in townships the freeholders were
(ff) 2 Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, c. 22, Sects. 21-22.
(h) Fortesque de laudibus by Amos 9, Vaughn's Reports, 198.
(i) Gross's Introduction to Select Coroners Rolls, XXX.
CORONERS' INQUESTS IN ENGLAND 105
amerced if they did not appear before the coroner. Town-
ships were often amerced at the eyre for refusing to come
or for not appearing in full.
"These details throw some light upon the relation of
the four townships to the twelve juratores of the hundred
who at the eyre presented and also tried persons accused
of crime. During Henry Ill's reign this jury, after hav-
ing presented that a certain person is suspected of crime,
is asked to say in so many words whether this man is
guilty or no. If it finds him guilty, then the four neigh-
boring townships are sworn and answer the same question.
If they agree with the :hundredors, sentence is passed
* * * by the end of Henry Ill's reign it is common that
the question of guilt or innocence should be submitted to the
presenting jury, to the jury of another hundred and to the
four vills * * * the practice of swearing in these villagers
seems to be abandoned (in Edward Fs reign) as the accused
acquires his right to a second jury of free and lawful
men. The importance of these vills as an element in the
body that tried the accused has been pointed out by Pro-
fessor Maitland in his introduction to Pleas of Gloucester.
He rightly remarks that the history of the petit jury is still
in manuscript. He is inclined to seek its germ in the
quatuor villatae; their representatives become a second body
of witnesses who could traverse the testimony of the hun-
dred jury. This is a plausible theory. If the work of the
neighboring towns at the eyre was not the germ of the
petit jury it was at least a stage in the development of
procedure which future historians of trial by jury cannot
safely ignore (&).
"The origin of the traverse or trial by jury was prob-
ably connected with a specific class of cases, namely, ap-
peals of felony, before and after the abolition of the or-
deal (circum 1219) for which the petit jury was substituted.
The appellee was often tried by a jury instead of wager of
battle. When such an appeal was presented by the jurors
of the hundred, the neighboring vills were sometimes asked
Pleas of Gloucester, 29; 2 Palgraves Commonwealth, 185.
106 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
for their testimony and on that testimony the accused might
be declared guilty or innocent. In these appeals and in
trials resulting from ordinary presentments by the public
voice, the four townships often appear to be regarded as
a body distinct from the accusing juratores, a body, in fact,
which virtually decides the case like the later petit jury.
"The neighboring vills were sometimes also employed
in connection with the presentment jury in making accusa-
tions and in such cases much weight was attached to their
testimony. The villatae were probably not a regular part
of either the accusing or the trial jury, but were called upon
in certain emergencies to add their knowledge of the facts
to that of the juratores, seemingly when the latter were in
doubt or when the court deemed it expedient that they
should be aforced. When such use was made of the vills
their declaration was generally accepted by the court as
a decisive verdict. The number of persons from each of
the four townships added in this way to the hundred jury is
rarely stated in the printed sources, but would naturally be
the reeve and four men who usually appear at eyre to repre-
sent the township.
"This activity of the neighboring villatae in criminal
pleas may perhaps be largely due to the fact that the town-
ship has already in most cases made a careful investigation
of the offence in connection with the coroner's inquest and
would therefore have more exact knowledge of the facts
than the hundred jury. The same four vills that made the
preliminary inquiry before the coroner would often par-
ticipate in the final trial before the justices. The jury of
twelve men of the hundred also had its counterpart in many
coroner's inquests. In these inquests as in the eyre the
twelve jurors brought in their verdict either by themselves
or in conjunction with the four vills.
"There is another way in which the coroner's inquest
may have influenced the growth of trial by jury. At some
of the inquests, evidence by persons not in the jury was
taken (/). The facts so ascertained were entered in the
(/) This was certainly done in 1270, Select Coroners Rolls, 25, in
1271 Select Coroners Rolls, 16.
CORONERS' INQUESTS IN ENGLAND 107
rotuli coronatoris for use before the itinerant justices. The
evidence produced at the inquest would also be generally
known to the representatives of the townships and when
they acted in conjunction with the trial jury, would have
weight in the final proceedings at eyre. Thus, in the cor-
oner's jury there seems to have been, at least in some cases,
a nearer approach to the determination of truth from the
evidence of witnesses than in the early petit jury whose
verdict was based on previous knowledge of the facts. The
coroner's jury may indeed be regarded as one of the links
uniting the old system of procedure to the modern practice
of deciding matters upon the evidence of witnesses openly
examined in court."
Sect. 53. The jury having qualified and the view had
the other evidence was then in order. The body, as has
been seen, was a large part of the evidence, the marks or
wounds upon the body were carefully observed by the
jury (w), and their length, breadth and depth, carefully
noted (n). All the evidence had to be on oath (0). A peer
might, at his election, affirm on his honor, and if he did,
there was no remedy (/>), but he could not then be compe-
tent as a witness. To qualify he must be sworn (#), but
he could not be compelled to be sworn (r).
It seems to have been the duty of the coroner to in-
quire impartially and fairly without prejudice or favor
to any one or any view of the case. It was his duty to hear
all the evidence that was offered to him (s). As Hale
quaintly says, "in cases where the inquest is conclusive, the
coroner must hear the evidence both for and against king,
for there is no man to be condemned to death, but only a
(m) Britton, c I, Sect. 7.
(n) 4 Edward I, i Statutes of the Realm, 40.
(0) Umfreville Lex Coronatoris, 187; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown,
61-157; King v. Scorey, I Leach, 43 (1749), a Jew should be sworn on
the Old Testament, Strange, 113, a Moor on the Koran, Strange, 1104.
(/>) Fort. Rep., 394-395, vide 3 Keb. 63; Umfreville Lex Corona-
toris, 188.
(g) Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris, 188.
(r) Freeman's Reports, 422-423.
(s~) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 157; King v. Scorey, i Leach,
43 (1749)-
108 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
fact to be inquired into" (f). In the case of King v.
Scorey (u) where a man had been killed in a nobleman's
forest by the defendant, one of the underkeepers, the coroner
refused to receive the evidence of the underkeeper who was
with Scorey to the effect that they had authority as keepers
of the forest. The coroner told the jury that they must find
it murder, but they refused so to find and returned a verdict
of accidental death, which the coroner recorded and then
sent Scorey to jail for murder. The court admitted Scorey
to bail and granted a rule on the coroner to show cause
why an information should not be granted against him.
In Ripley's case (v} it was alleged that the coroner refused
proof that the deceased was non compos mentis and the jury
returned a verdict of felo de se (w). The court told the
administratrix to take the inquest into the King's Bench
and traverse it (x). In King v. Stukley (3;) a man made
his will just before he died. The other circumstances of
the case were suspicious. The evidence was very strong that
hekilled himself, so thecoroner took some of the jurymen off
the jury, who then returned a verdict of non compos mentis.
On these facts appearing the return was quashed and Holt,
C. J., said the jurymen could not be amoved after the jury
was sworn (z). In Berkley's case (a) where the coroner
refused to hear evidence that the person felo de se was in
fact non compos mentis, he was repremanded by the King's
Bench and the inquisition was quashed. Hale says, (&)'
"but where it is known that one killed another the only evi-
(f) 2 Male's Pleas of the Crown, 60; Umfreville's Lex Corona-
toris, 204. The inference seems to be that if there was a man to be
condemned to death it would be no part of the judges duty to hear
evidence against the Crown.
() I Leach, 43 (1749), and see Jervis on Coroners, 284.
(v) 2 Jones, 198; 2 Shower, 199; Skinner, 45.
(w) By so doing the King got his forfeiture. It was not re-
corded how much thereby accrued to the coroner.
(x) See Alderman's Case, 2 Levinz, 152 s. c. sub nom Rex v.
Alderman, i Ventris, 278, sub non Anonymous, Freeman, 419-433.
(y) 12 Modern, 423 (1702).
(*) Croke's Elizabeth, 371 ; Carthew, 72 ; i Ventris, 181 ; I Salkeld,
190; 3 Modern, 80-100-238; i Strange, 69.
(o) 2 Siderfen, 90-101-144 (1658), and see 2 Kale's Pleas of the
Crown, 60.
(b) 2 Pleas of the Crown, 60.
CORONERS' INQUESTS IN ENGLAND 109
dence to be heard is that for the king and the jury must
bring it in murder even though it be an officer in the
execution of his duty, for the defence will be made before
the petit jury where the verdict will correct that of the
coroners and thus it hath been commonly practiced in later
years" (c). Yet he adds and we cannot but agree with him,
"but it seemeth to me to be neither reasonable nor agree-
able to law or ancient usage. It may do indeed for the
grand jury but not for the coroners, for these reasons:
because the coroner's inquest is to inquire truly (rf) and is
rather for the information of the truth of the fact as near
as the jury can assert it and not for accusation; 2, because
though the prisoner may be arraigned upon the coroner's
inquest, if it find it murder or manslaughter (e), yet
neither the court nor the prosecutor is concluded by it,
but the bill of murder may be preferred to the grand in-
quest and upon that new presentment, the party may be
arraigned and tried though the coroner's inquest arises
only to manslaughter or it may be to se defendo or chance
medley; 3. and accordingly the ancient practice hath been
for the coroner's inquest to find the matter as they judge
it was (/). Therefore, there is a difference in the statute
of i and 2 Phillip and Mary, chapter 13 (g} between the
provisions as to justices and as to coroners; the justices are
directed to put down so much of the evidence as is material
'to prove felonies' while those words are omitted as to
coroners."
(c) But it was for doing just this that the rule to show cause was
granted in King v. Scorey, supra.
(d) Why should not this hold as to indictments before the grand
jury; they are to inquire truly. See Rex v. Dalton, 2 Strange, 911
(1722) ; Rex v. Magrath, 2 Strange, 1242 (1746) ; 2 Burn's Justices, 43
(Edition of 1845)- The inquisition of felony ought to be as certain
as indictments, Rex v. Clerk, Holt, 167, nothing shall be taken by in-
tendment in them, i Saunder's Reports, 356.
(e) The practice now is and long has been to take the indictment
before the grand jury. These parallel proceedings seem at first blush
a needless waste of time and money, but on second consideration it
will be seen the purposes of the two inquisitions are totally different.
(/) Crompton's Justices, f 58 ; Holme's Case, 26 Elizabeth ; Coke's
Entries, 353b, and very often in the ancient iters of Edward II, and
Edward III; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 61.
(0) (i554) 4 Statutes of the Realm, part 2, p. 250. See 2 Hale'i
Pleas of the Crown, 6r.
110 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
In his note to Blackstone's remarks on this subject
the late Chief Justice Coleridge says: "It seems probable
that in ancient times the whole inquisition was taken with
the body lying before the coroner and jury, or at least that
the body was not buried till the inquisition was concluded.
Now, however, it is sufficient if the coroner and jury have
together a view of the body (such a view as enables
them to ascertain whether there are any marks of violence
on it or any appearance explanatory of the cause of death)
and the latter are then sworn by the former in the presence
of the body. These two, however, are indispensable condi-
tions to the proceeding by the coroner (A)."
The statute of I & 2 Phillip and Mary, Chapter 13
(t) provides, "every coroner upon any inquisition before
him found whereby any person or persons shall be indicted
for murder or manslaughter, or as accessory or accessories
to the same before the murder or manslaughter committed
shall put in writing the effect of the evidence given to the
jury before him, being material" and shall bind over the
witnesses to the next gaol delivery and return the examina-
tion and recognizances with the inquisition on pain of
being fined by the judge (fc).
There is no requirement that the evidence shall be taken
down, but the coroner shall take down the "effect of the
evidence." According to East (/) the statute does not
authorize him to take down the impression which the evi-
dence made upon his mind, but the meaning of the witnesses.
He need not, however, follow their exact words unless
that is important (m).
It has been doubted whether the parties interested in
the inquiry are entitled to the benefit of counsel before the
cononer's inquest. In one case of felo de se the court of
King's Bench quashed the inquisition because the coroner
refused to admit counsel and witnesses on behalf of the
(/) Regina v. Ferrand, 3 B & A, 260.
(*') (1554), 4 Statutes of the Realm, part 2, p. 250.
(*) 40 shillings, 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 64; 6 Viner's
Abridgment, 246.
(/) i Pleas of the Crown, 384.
(m) Jervis on the Law of Coroners, 45.
CORONERS' INQUESTS IN ENGLAND 111
administratrix ('). There is, however, no decision ap-
plicable to other inquiries before the coroner and the case
alluded to proceeded upon the supposition that inquisitions
of felo de se were not traversable, whereas it may be
supported more properly upon another ground without
reference to the admissibility of counsel, viz. : the rejection
of evidence. It was admitted in the argument of the case of
Cox v. Coleridge (&), that a party has the right to attend
by counsel before the coroner's inquest. The point was not,
however, noticed in the judgment of the court, but Mr.
Justice Bayley observed incidentally that the right de-
pended upon the question whether or no the inquest were
traversable. But with great deference to so high an au-
thority it would seem that the right can in no case de-
pend on this criterion. The nature of the finding can-
not be ascertained until all the witnesses are examined
and the verdict returned, at which period it would be fruit-
less to allow or disallow the attendance of counsel.
"If this be correct the question of abstract right must
be considered without reference to direct authority and
it would seem in principle to be at most but doubtful.
There is nothing in the position of counsel to except them
from the power of exclusion vested in the coroner and if
they are allowed there is no reason why any other advocate
skilled in the law should not be permitted to be present
at the coroner's proceedings. If any advocate has the
right to be present a fortiori the party suspected ( for there
can be no accusation until the inquiry is terminated) may
be present also and undoubtedly the coroner may, if he
thinks fit, exclude even the persons suspected. If the
party suspected or interested has a right to the assist-
ance of counsel it is impossible to say that those in the
opposite interest have not the equal right to have the
presence and assistance of some legal adviser on their
behalf, and if one may attend, why not several. If an
advocate has a right to be present he may obtain such in-
formation as may tend to frustrate the administration
() Berkley's Case, 2 Sid., go, 101.
(*) I B. & C. 37, 2 D. & R. 86.
112 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
of justice by knowing who the persons are who are likely
to be accused and the evidence by which the accusation may
be supported. The profession at the present day is too
liberal, honorable and intelligent to furnish ground for ob-
jection on this score, but the bare possibility is sufficient
to determine the question abstract right" (n). It is here
worth while to note that in England, at that time certainly,
a prisoner had no right to counsel before the magistrate
and none before the coroner.
"It by no means follows as a consequence that their
admission on some occasions would confer a right to be
present at all" (0).
"If it be not left to the fair discretion of the coroner
whether he will or will not admit counsel that privacy which
is due, not only to the ends of justice, where the inquiry
may terminate in accusation, but also in many cases to the
feelings of the family of the deceased cannot be main-
tained. This exclusion may in some cases operate as a
temporary grievance, but it is obviously a greater that the
party suspected should be excluded, yet that may be done
if the coroner think proper, and it is better that there should
be some hardship suffered in the individual case than that
the public should sustain a greater detriment.
"On the other hand it is obvious that there are many
cases in which it may be expedient for the coroner to ad-
mit the presence of persons learned in the law. Wherever
questions of doubt of difficulty may present themselves
in the course of the inquiry, it is fitting that both the
court and jury should have the benefit of the attendance
of counsel, although coroners are in all cases presumed
to be qualified to discharge their duties, should such cases
occur. * * * In fine, the power of exclusion, even of the
public generally, ought to be regulated by a due regard
to the circumstances of each particular case and should,
in no instance, be arbitrarily or improperly enforced" (/>).
(n) Jervis on the Law of Coroners, 266.
(o) Jervis, 269.
(p) Jervis, 267.
CORONERS' INQUESTS IN ENGLAND 113
Sect. 54. "It has been the subject of much contro-
versy whether the inquiry before the coroner is of a public
nature, for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of death
merely and such as takes place in the ordinary courts of
justice or on an inquest of office or whether it is merely
an ex parte and secret proceeding analogous to that before
grand juries and magistrates for the purpose of accusation
which is admitted to be private (q).
"In support of the publicity of the proceedings it is
urged first that the duties of the coroner and the obligations
of the public towards him, show that the inquiry is public;
secondly, that the individuals have interests with reference
to the inquest which can only be exercised by a right of ac-
cess, and lastly the dictci of learned judges are adduced to
show that the proceedings should be open and public (r).
"In support of the first proposition it is contended that
the inquiry before the coroner does not necessarily lead to
accusation and that the probability of its so terminating
is not a ground sufficient for saying that it should be secret.
"The statute of Marlbridge, Chapter 24 (s) is also
cited as a legislative declaration that all persons of the
age of twelve years ought to be present at an inquest for
the death of a man. The former part of that chapter
remedies the grievance before felt from amercements im-
posed upon townships because all persons of the age of
twelve years did not attend the coroners inquest upon all
occasions and provides that there shall be no amercement
if a sufficient number of those summoned come to take the
inquest, but it excepts expressly from that provision in-
quests for the death of a man, and therefore it is contended
in those cases, all are bound to attend. How otherwise, it is
said, can the inquiry be conducted with effect ; for the coroner
goes on the spot, where the inquiry is to be instituted know-
ing nothing of the occurrence or who may or who may not
(q\ Cox v. Coleridge, 2 D. & R. 86, I B. & C. 37. This whole
section is quoted from Jervis on Coroners whose discussion of the mat-
ter is too able to be improved upon.
(r) Britton, c. I, Sect. 7, says the coroner shall not omit to cause
the body to be openly viewed and by the inquest.
(s) I Statutes of the Realm, 25 (1267).
114 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
be able to testify to the circumstances of it. Sir T. Smith
in his history of the Commonwealth (f) observes that 'the
empanneling of the coroner's inquest and the view of the
body is commonly in the street in an open place and in
corona populi' and in an anonymous case () in which the
court held that an inquisition of felo de se was traversable,
Lord Hale distinguished it from a fugum fecit by observing
that 'all the parties that were present at the death of the
party are bound to attend the coroners inquest and upon their
not appearing there is a flying in law which cannot be con-
tradicted'.
"With reference to the second proposition it being ad-
mitted that the coroner must hear the evidence as well for as
against the interest of the crown, how, it is said, can. one
who is not present tell what evidence is given to criminate
him so as to be enabled to advance evidence in answer.
Again a subject has a right to move to set aside an in-
quisition for irregularity ; but of that he can have no knowl-
edge unless he be present (v}. The coroner's inquest par-
takes of the nature of other offices of entitling (w) at
which the public have a right to be present, that right being
secured by the statutes of escheators (;r), which it is said
are but declaratory of the common law. Although to a
certain extent traversable, that does not preclude the right,
for although an inquisition to find debts is also traversable
a party interested has a right to be present and to cross-
examine the witnesses (y), for irreparable injury may be
done even though ultimately the inquisition may be tra-
versed. It is not similar to proceedings before a magistrate
or grand jury. There in the first instance a particular in-
dividual is accused; before the coroner there is no accusa-
tion, but the inquiry is to ascertain how the party came to
(I) See Jervis on Coroners, p. 96.
() Freeman's Reports, 419; see Rex v. Aldenham, 2 Levinz, 152
s. c., sub non, Rex v. Alderman, i Ventris, 278.
(v) 3 Modern, 80.
(/) Rex v. Killinghall, I Burroughs, 17, where the inquest was
quashed because it was not "publicly and openly found." See Ham-
mond v. Howell, i Modern, 814.
(JT) 34 Edward HI, c. 13 ; 36 Henry VI, c. 16 ; i Henry VIII, c. 8.
(y) 3 Price, 454.
CORONERS' INQUESTS IN ENGLAND 115
his death. Grand Jurors are sworn to secrecy, by the oath
of the coroners jury no such term is imposed. Depositions
before grand juries are not evidence, those before the coroner
are (#), which must be, because the party suspected or
ultimately accused has the right to be present to cross-
examine the witnesses.
"Thirdly, the dicta of modern judges are adduced to
show that the proceedings are public. Mr. Justice Black-
stone (a), speaking of a presentment of fugam fecit says,
the reason given in some books why this inquest is not
traversable like other inquests of office is because of the
notoriety of the coroner's inquest super visum corporis,
at which the inhabitants of all the neighboring villages are
bound to attend and so the finding of flight is in effect re-
cording the absence of the party, Lord Mansfield (6),
likens it to other inquests of office which are open by ex-
press statutes, and Lord Kenyon (c) expressly says that
the examination before the coroner is a transaction of
notoriety to which every one has a right of access.
"However strong these authorities and arguments may
at first sight appear, they do not upon examination establish
a universal right for all the public to be present; but at
most extend only to such as are summoned, suspected, in-
terested in the result of the inquiry, or are inhabitants of
the vill where the body is found dead.
"According to the best opinions, the coroner's inquisi-
tion is in no case conclusive and the inquiry is therefore
preliminary only. It appears from the commentary of
Lord Coke ().
This amenity from actions or questions at the suit of an in-
dividual, is given by the law to the judges not so much for
the sake of the judges as for that of the public, that the
judges being free from actions may be free in thought and
independent in judgment. Were it otherwise no one would
act at the peril of being harassed by a multiplicity of ac-
tions and of having his motives and reasons weighed and
tried by juries at the suit of individuals who may be dis-
satisfied with his conduct. There are few who would not
(o) Garnett v. Ferrand, 6 B. & C., 611.
() Floyd v. Baker, 12 Coke's Reports, 23 (1608) ; I Lord Ray-
mond, 451 ; i Modern, 184 ; Thomas v. Churton, 2 B. & Smith, 475 s. c.
8 Jurist New Series, 795.
120 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
prefer rather to admit disorder and confusion and all the evil
consequences that would follow from the indiscriminate
admission of those who might choose to intrude, than to
place themselves in a situation of so great jeopardy. It
is not to be presumed that those who are selected for the
administration of justice will make an ill use of authority
vested in them. In the imperfection of human nature, it
is better even that an individual should occasionaly suffer
a wrong than that the general course of justice should be
impeded and fettered by constant and perpetual restraint
and apprehensions on the part of those who are to admin-
ister it. Corruption, misconduct or neglect of duty are
quite a different consideration ; for these there is a due course
of punishment by criminal prosecution (g).
"Whatever, therefore, may have formerly been the
question of right is it clear from the late decision (r), the
coroner has the power of excluding not only particular
individuals, but the public generally. It is, nevertheless,
obvious that in many cases publicity assists not only the
investigation of the truth but the detection of guilt, and,
therefore, this power ought not, without great cause and
due consideration, to be enforced.
"A question has arisen and was noted in a recent case
(s) as to the right of a coroner to have a person, who is in
custody, charged with homicide in respect of which an in-
quest is being taken, brought before him for the purpose of
identification by the witnesses to be examined on such in-
quest. In that case an application was made to the court
of Queen's Bench at the instance of the coroner for a writ
of habeas corpus to remove the body of a man who stood
committed to the custody of the Governor of Newgate upon
a charge of murder and to bring him before the coroner and
a jury of the county of Middlesex on an inquest on the body
of the deceased in order to be identified by certain witnesses.
The court, apparently not entertaining grave doubt of
their power to issue the writ declined so to do in this par-
(q) Per Lord Tenterden, 6 B. & C, 626.
(r) Garnett v. Ferrand, 6 B. & C, 611.
(j) In re Cook, 7 Q. B., 653.
CORONERS' INQUESTS IN ENGLAND 121
ticular case on the ground that no necessity for it existed,
it not being shown that the identification could not be af-
fected without producing the prisoner. Lord Denman
said : 'I have the greatest respect for the office of coroner
and I have always entertained the highest opinion of the
services rendered by that office in preserving the lives of
the subjects of her Majesty. We ought not, however, to
exercise our power of interference supposing such power
to exist except under a due sense of the danger that may
ensue from taking a man out of custody to which he has
been committed upon so grave a charge as that upon which
the present party is confined. Nevertheless, if the jury
could not otherwise go on with their inquiry, I should con-
sider anxiously the course which this court ought to per-
sue for the purpose of assisting an inferior tribunal, but
here I see no difficulty in the party being identified on the
same evidence by which he was identified when he
appeared before the committing magistrates' and Mr. Justice
Williams observed, 'no case of inconvenience has existed
in the coroner's court for centuries by reason of no such writ
having been granted; consequently I do not see the weight
of the argument as to inconvenience which will arise from
our refusing to grant this writ now. No inconvenience can
arise from a person going to Newgate to see the party
there, but there is great inconvenience in letting a party
in custody out of the close walls of a prison' " ().
Sect. 55. It is not purposed to go into the law of
deodand to any extent whatever. With the intricacies of
the law upon this subject we are in no way concerned.
We are concerned, however, with the coroner's inquisi-
tion concerning deodands and forfeitures. Wheresoever the
inquest found murder it was the duty of the coroner to
further inquire into the goods and chattels and lands of the
person found culpable, these were to be valued by the jury
and turned over to the vill to keep on pain of amercement
and delivered over by the town to the justices in eyre (w).
(/) This whole section is quoted from Jervis on Coroners, p. 240,
et seq. From it all, Stephen concludes "the coroner may exclude all
persons form his inquest if he thinks desirable for the purpose of
justice and decency" Digest of Criminal Procedure, 219.
() See Statute 4 Edward I, i Statutes of the Realm, 40.
122 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
So where death had been caused by felony or misadventure
the deodand was to be inquired of, and having been valued
and enrolled, was to be delivered over to the vill to keep
until the coming of the justices (v~). The deodand was
the personal chattel which when the immediate cause moving
to the death of a reasonable being was forfeited to the
king (w). It must be in motion or there is no deodand
if it were affixed to the freehold it was not a deodand
(*) but into the intricacies of this most intriciate of all
law, it is not profitable to persue inquiry further.
Sect 56. Britton tells us (y) "of every inquest taken
on the view of the body of a person feloniously killed let
the coroner summon a parent of the deceased or more on
the part of the father or mother to appear before him to
prove Englisheria (2) (i. e. that the deceased was of Eng-
lish extraction and not a foreigner) according to the usage
of the country and record their names" (a).
(v) See Britton, Chapter i, where there is a lengthy discussion
of this topic.
(w) Burn's Case, 5 Pa. C. C. R., 549 (1888).
(*) 4 Justices of the Peace, 536 (English).
(y) Britton, c i, Sect. 35.
(*) Bracton II, p. 391 ; Fleta, c 30, Pleas of Gloucester, 57.
(a) Fleta, c 30.
CHAPTER VII.
THE EFFECT OF THE INQUEST AND THE RETURN.
Sect. 57. When no further evidence could be pro-
duced the coroner drew up the inquisition and he and the
jurors set their hands and seals to it (&). This done,
the inquest was over, a second could not be held unless
and until the first was disposed of. If the culpable one
was present he was seized and thrust into jail (c). If he
was not present, the coroner could issue a warrant to the
sheriff to apprehend him (J).
The coroner of a franchise had power to "make pro-
cess within the franchise to the sheriff, vide the case of
Ely, 29 Edward III, 41 b., quare how the usage is there
viz. : whether the judge makes out process of the liberty and
to whom" (e). The witnesses or first finders should be
bound over to appear at the next gaol delivery and their
names should be enrolled together with those of their
sureties (/). The coroner then issued a warrant to have the
body buried (g). If the person had been felo de se the war-
rant is supposed to have been that the body be buried in
some public street or highway (h). Driving a stake through
the body says Umfreville (i) is a practice that hath no
countenance from the coroner's warrant though it may
serve to make the ignominy more notorious (). The
(ft) 22 Assize, 94. As late as 1840 it was held in Regina v. Stock-
dale, 8 Dowl. P. C, 516, that where several of the jury were marksmen
and their marks were not attested the inquest should be quashed. Over-
ruling Lewen's Case, 2 Lewin C. C., 125 (1834) where it was held that
several of the jury being marksmen those who were not might be at-
testing witnesses to those who were.
(c) Bracton, f I2ib; 4 Edward I, i Statutes of the Realm, 40;
Fleta, Book I, cap. 25, Sect. 5.
(d) Britton, c i, Sect. 17; Chitty Criminal Law, 164; Jervis on
Coroners, 46.
(/) Bracton, f I2ib; 4 Edward I, i Statutes of the Realm, 40.
(/) Bracton, f I2ib; 4 Edward I, I -Statutes of the Realm, 29.
(g) Britton, c I, Sect. 7 ; Fleta Lib. I, cap. 25, Sect. 8.
(h) Umfreville Lex Coronatoris, 8. ,
() Umfreville, it must be remembered was himself a coroner.
(fc) Umfreville Lex Coronatoris, 9.
(123)
124 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
coroner's duties did not end there. Under the statute of
Marlbridge, chapter 13 (/), it is necessary that he should
turn in all his inquests (returns) to the justices in eyre by
a certain day, when the felon must be there or at least on
the next day assigned (m). This was altered by the
statute of third Henry VII which provides that the cor-
oner must seal and certify his inquisition into the next gaol
delivery or into the Court of King's Bench under pain of
5 (n). If the coroner refuse or neglect to return the
inquisition, certiorari is the proper method to force a re-
turn or to remove it into the King's Bench or Chancery
(0). By the statute cf I & 2 Phillip & Mary, chapter 13,
(/>) as we have seen (#) where the inquisition finds mur-
der or manslaughter, the coroner ought to put the effect of
the evidence "being material" into writing and return it
with the inquisition and the recognizances of the witnesses
he has bound over to appear at the next gaol delivery (r).
But if the return is felo de se he is not obliged to return
the depositions (s}. Although Blackstone tells us that he
"must certify the whole of his inquisition '(under his
own seal and the seals of his jurors together with the evi-
dence thereon) to the Court of King's Bench or the next
assizes" (t), it is hardly correct to say that the evidence
should be returned in cases not within the statute of Phillip
& Mary. The coroner of the admiralty returns his inquisi-
tions before the commissioners in admiralty ; the coroner of
(/) 1267, i Statutes of the Realm, 23.
(m) Ibid.
(n) See 2 Statutes of the Realm, 510 (1487) and see i Kale's
Pleas of the Crown, 418. In Lord Buckhurst's Case, I Keble, 280 fol.
8l, where murder was found, the coroner kept the inquest in his
pocket instead of returning it. He was discharged and fined iioo.
(0) Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 64; Kale's Summary, 171;
2 Coke's Institutes, 176. The fact that the inquisition was taken after
the certiorari tested did not vitiate it. Anonymous, 2 Lord Ray-
mond, 1305 (1710).
(/) 4 Statutes of the Realm, Part II, p. 250 (1554).
(q) Ante, Sect. 53.
(r) Or Assize.
(j) Rex v. Sutton, Strange, 1073.
(0 I Commentaries, 349, citing 33 Henry VIII, c 12; i Philip &
Mary, c 13; 2 West Symbol, Sect. 310; Compton, 264; Tremains Pleas
of the Crown, 621; Lord Hale says the county coroner returns his in-
quisitions before the commissioners of gaol delivery, 2 Pleas of the
Crown, 54.
EFFECT OF INQUEST AND RETURN 125
the verge before the lord master or lord steward of the
Household (M) ; the coroner of a franchise before the
judge of gaol delivery in the franchise (v).
The return thus made had in cases of felony the effect
of an indictment (w) and could be pleaded to in the same
way (;r). Thereon the party might be tried without the
intervention of a grand jury (;y). We may, therefore,
expect that the inquest must be drawn up with great pre-
cision and such was the case. Umfreville tells us "the an-
cient form or mode of inquest is not as I can find anywhere
publickly (sic) or directly given to show us, other than
by implications" (2). The coroner was held to all the pre-
ciseness of an indictment for felony (a). He must sub-
scribe his official title to the inquest (b). If he was lord
of a franchise he must in his return style himself "cor-
oner" or his inquisition was void, a fortiori if he was only
coroner for a lord of a franchise (c) and so when Lord
Berkley's coroner neglected to state how Lord Berkley came
to make him coroner (d), the return v/as quashed (e).
The caption must not only name the coroner as such, but
the date and year of the king's reign must be set forth
(/) and the year of our Lord must be stated and in Ro-
(u) 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 54, citing 33 Henry VIII, c 12,
Sect. 3 ; 28 Henry VIII, c 15.
(v) 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 68.
(a/) I Chitty on Criminal Law, 163; Jervis on Coroners, 326.
(*) Jervis on the Law of Coroners, 326. If both the grand jury
and inquest find him guilty he must be arraigned on the inquest and
plead antreforis acquit or he will be liable to be outlawed on the in-
quest, 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 65. But if both are exactly alike
he may be arraigned and tried on both at once, Ibid.
(y) 3 Campbell, 371; I Salkeld, 382; 2 Leach, 1095.
(*) Lex Coronatoris XXXI, and we would agree with him had
not Jervis in Chapter X, p. 273, given us such an excellent form (see
appendix). There is also an inquest set forth at length in Long's Case,
5 Coke's Reports, i2Oa (1605).
(a) Queen v. Clerk, i Salkeld, 377 (1702).
(&) Schrogs v. Spencer, Moore, 548, pi. 734 (1675).
(c) 22 Edward IV, 12.
(d) Where in law, Lord Berkley's power to create a coroner came
from.
( for if the inquisi-
tion set forth no place it was insufficient (&), or if it did
not show a place within the coroner's jurisdiction (/). The
return must show the date with exactness, for if it were
held on Sunday it was void (m). The nature of the death
should be most particularly set forth (n). If by wound,
the place, length and depth of the wound should be men-
tioned (0), and whether there was one or more than one
wound and by what weapon it was made, and who did the
wounding (/) and that the wound was fatal (q). It
should be specifically stated by whom the crime was com-
mitted (r), if the person was unknown, he was called
John-a-Noke (s), or it was said the person was unknown.
The return must specify the names of jurors (t) and that
(0) And where it was in common figures the return was quashed.
Rex v. Phillips, i Strange, 261 (1720).
(K) Anonymous, Comberback, 70.
(*) Pinner's Case, Croke's Elizabeth, 31 pi. 4 (1584), where A
being coroner of Ludlow only "cepit inquisitionem super visum corporis
infra metas et hundredas comitat" it was held void, and see King v.
Cross, Keble, 744 (1664), and 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 66.
(&) Anonymous, 2 Lord Raymond, 1305 (1710), and See Dyer, 69.
(/) Thorney's Case, Croke's James, 276 (1612). But where it
was set forth to have been held at B, before J. S. coroner of the
King's liberty of B it need not be set forth that B is within the said
liberty for that cannot but be intended, Long's Case, 5 Coke's Reports,
I2ob (1605).
(m) King v. Bunney, 2 Saunders, 291. See Jervis on Coroners,
279-
(n) King v. Solway, 3 Modern, 100 pi. 61 (1686). Anonymous,
12 Modern, 112 (1697) thus where the jury found a post in the road
was one of the causes of the death, the inquest was quashed for
uncertainty.
(0) 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 58.
(/>) 4 Edward I, i Statutes of the Realm, 40.
(g) Queen v. Clerk, i Salkeld, 377 (1702) ; King v. Parker, 2
Levinz, 141; Stanlack's Case, i Ventris, 181 s. c.; i Modern, 671 (1675);
Anonymous, i Ventris, 352 (1680).
(r) In Regina v. Stockdale, 8 Dowl. P. C, 516 (1840), an inquest
was held bad for not so stating.
(j) 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 64-65.
(0 Pinner's Case, Croke's Elizabeth, 31 pi. 4 (1584); Fitzherbert's
Abridgment Title Coroners, 107; Staundeford's Pleas of the Cro\
51 ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, 77.
EFFECT OF INQUEST AND RETURN 127
they were good and lawful men (w). But it was not neces-
sary to state that they were of the four next vills (v), for
that the court intended (;). Hawkins doubts this for he
says it is a material part of the inquest and no material
part of an indictment (for an inquest is an indictment) will
be intended; though he acknowledges that the authorities
are against his view (*). The return must state that the
jurors were sworn (3;). It ought also to contain the names
of all witnesses or parties let by mainprize to the next
assize (or goal delivery) and of their pledges (z}. In
some cases technical words were required, thus, where there
was a verdict of felo de se the omission of the words "per
cussit" has been held fatal (a). "Sic seipsum murdravit"
has also been held essential (6), but there are instances
where they have been omitted (c}. In Regina v. Clerk (d)
it was said that the word "murdravit" was not necessary, and
(M) Lord Coke has said they need not be described as good and
lawful men for they are presumed to be so until proved otherwise, see
4 Justices of the Peace (Eng.) 535. But in Earl of Berkshire's Case,
Palmer, 252 (1623), where the coroner omitted the words probum el
legalum hominum, the return was quashed for they might have been
villeins. See Francis City's Case, Croke's James, 635, pi. 2 (1623), and
in Withipole's Case, Jones, 198-9 s. c. ; Croke's Charles, 134, Ley. 81
(1628) two of the jury were outlaws and the return was quashed.
(v) King v. Cross, Keble, 744 (1664) to say that they were law-
ful men without saying that they were of the next town is sufficient
so that it appears by what jurors it was taken, i Siderfen, 204, i
Keble, 416-723-727-744, contra, Latch, 166; Popham, 210; Coke's Book
of Entries, 354; Pinner's Case, Croke's Elizabeth, 31 (1584); I Hale's
Pleas of the Crown, 416 ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 22 ;
Poph. 210, being good before the statute it is still good, 2 Hawkins's
Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 22. But in Anonymous, 2 Lord Ray-
mond, 1305 (1710), the inquest was quashed because it was "per sacre-
mentum duodecim and does not say proborum et legalum hominum nor
for what plea."
(w) Berkley's Case, 2 Siderfen, 90-101-144 (1658), and see I Hale's
Pleas of the Crown, 410.
(*) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 22.
(y) Pinner's Case, Croke's Elizabeth, 31 (1584) ; 2 Hawkins's
Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 22; i Siderfen, 204; Keble, 727, 744,
contra, Latch, 166; Popham, 210; Coke's Entries, 354.
(*) 22 Assize, 94; 4 Edward I, and see 3 Henry VII.
(a) Palmer, 252 ; Croke's James, 635.
(&) Per Twisden, J., I Siderfen, 204; per Holt, C. J., in Queen v.
Clerk, i Salkeld, 377 (1702) ; Plowden, 255; I Saunders, 256.
(c) i Keble, 66; 7 Modern, 16, but see Queen v. Clerk, i Salkeld,
377 (1702), yet it has been said if the finding is correct in substance
though defective in form it may be amended, King v. Harrison, I
Siderfen, 255-259; 3 Modern, 101.
(d) (1702) i Salkeld, 377.
128 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
that the inquisition might stand as an indictment for man-
slaughter. It is to be noted that that was a case where the
jury found "Clerk cum cultro jugulum suum voluntarie &
felonice & ut felo de se & seipsum murdravit" (dd). The
inquest was sought to be quashed on two grounds. Con-
cerning the second, it was said per cur. "The inquisition
is good without the word murdravit for it is, as an indict-
ment, a finding of manslaughter, and so it was held in Dame
Hale's case." We have an authority for the proposition that
the inquest may be amended in all points, but the verdict,
provided it be done in open court (e). It was said more
recently that if the finding were correct in substance, though
defective in form it might be amended (/), and yet it must
be remembered that it had been held the caption could not
be amended (gr), and a variance between the name of a
juror in the caption and the name the juror signed had been
held fatal (ft). It is difficult to see the reason for saying
that the return is amendable for it is not within
the statute of jeo fails (i), but it must be re-
membered that where an inquest would have been
good before the statute of 4 Edward I, it is still good (&).
Once the inquest was filed no melius inquirendum (/)
could be awarded until the inquest was quashed (w).
If the inquest be quashed because of a male se gessit, a
melius inquirendum should be awarded (n) and the new
inquest so directed to be taken should be taken by the
(dd) This is evidently a misprint for "occidit."
(e) King v. Harrison, i Siderfen, 255 ; pi. 18, and see I Siderfen,
259-
(/) King v. Solway, 3 Modern, 101 (1686).
(g) Anonymous, Comberback, 70.
(fc) 4 Justices of the Peace (Eng.), 519.
(i) Jervis, p. 273.
(*) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 22.
(/) A writ which issued after an imperfect inquisition by the cor-
oner commanding the sheriff or commissioners to summon another in-
quest in order to more correctly ascertain, etc.
(m) King v. Stanlake, 2 Keble, 859 (1671) if the inquest is de-
fective it should be quashed by the court before which the party is
arraigned, but this should be done before plea Bunny's Case.
Carthew, 72.
(n) Croke's Elizabeth, 371; 3 Keble, 800-855; Salkeld, 190; Cathew,
72; i Ventns, 181-352; 3 Modern, 80-100-238; contra, 2 Jones, 198.
EFFECT OF INQUEST AND RETURN 129
sheriff or justices or by special commissioners (0), but if it
was quashed for any other reason, the coroner simply took
another inquest super visum corporis (/>).
In order that a melius inquirendum should be granted
it must appear that the coroner was corrupt in taking the
inquest. Thus, if one be found by the coroner to be dead
per infortunium and it is suggested to the Court of King's
Bench that he was in fact felo de se a melius inquiredum
should not issue, the coroner is the proper person to take
the new inquest (q). So where the deceased was felo de
se and the coroner's inquest found him a lunatic, Mr. Jones
moved for a melius inquiredum, but it was denied because
there was no defect in the inquisition, but the court told him
that if he could produce an affidavit that the jury did not
go according to the evidence or of any indirect proceedings
by the coroner, they would grant it (r). In King v. Alden-
ham (,?), A committed suicide and the jury were going to
bring him in non compos mentis, but the coroner adjourned
them from time to time., until they came to his idea and found
it felo de se, it was moved three times to set the inquest
aside for practice (t), but Hale, C. J., said the executors
might traverse the inquest (u) and refused the melius *w-
(o) 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 59-69; 2 Rolle's Abridgment,
23; 21 Edward IV, 70b; i Salkeld, 190; 2 Siderfen, 204; Strange, 69; I
Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 415 ; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9,
Sect. 56.
(/>) Croke's Elizabeth, 371; 3 Keble, 800-856; I Modern, 82; I
Salkeld, 190; I Ventris, 181-352; 3 Modern, 80-100-238; contra, 2 Jones,
198, or has committed a misdemeanor, I Ventris, 182-352, King v.
Hetherfall, 3 Modern, 80-238 (1685) ; 2 Jones, 198; Carthew, 72 : Un-
due practice" was long considered sufficient ground for a melius m-
quirendum, Anonymous, i Ventris, 352 (1680). See 3 Modern, 80; I Sal-
keld, 190; 12 Modern, 493, but a melius inquirendum granted because
the fact that the deceased was felo de se had been suggested to the
King's Bench was held void, 2 Anderson, 204, and the whole doctrine
was questioned in King v. Wakefield, I Strange, 69 (1718), because
the practice could not appear on the record.
(q) Aurlstone's Case, Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium, 144, 25,
though contra, Croke's Elizabeth n. 13.
(r) King v. Hetherfall, 3 Modern, 80 (1685), and see King v.
Bunney, i Salkeld, 190; Carthew, 72 (1689) ; 12 Modern, 496; 2 Jones,
198; i Ventris, 181, and see Strange, 22-167-533, 2 Levinz, 141; Croke s
Elizabeth, 371; 3 Keble, 800; 2 Strange, 1073, 1097.
(j) 2 Levinz 152 (1675) s. c., sub nom Rex v. Alderman, i Ven-
tris, 278 ; sub nom Anoymous, Freeman, 419-443-
(0 The coroner received 8.
() It is hard to see how this can be for a felo de se can have
neither executors nor administrators, King v. Warnngton, I Salkeld,
152 pi. 2 (1692).
130 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
quircmlum. In Stanlack's case (v) the inquisition found
that the deceased came to his end from a meagrim (head-
ache) at Greenwich. Sir Edward Thurland moved for
a melius inquirendum producing several affidavits to the effect
"that Stanlack was riding in the highway and a coach
with six horses, rushing by him, cast him from his horse
and killed him, and that drivers offered to prove this before
the coroner and he would not hear them." The court said
that where practice was proved on the part of the coroner
a melius inquirendum might issue and in this case thought the
misdemeanor of the coroner should have been more clearly
set out. In Rex v. Wakefield (;) where it fully appeared
that the deceased was a lunatic, but the coroner for the pur-
pose of securing the forfeiture told the jury to bring in a
verdict of felo de se, for it was the same as non compos
mentis, they found felo de se; hearing of the consequence
the jury came to the coroner and told him they were satis-
field the man was a lunatic, the coroner drew up a new inqui-
sition and the jury set their hands to it, but on a certiorari
being taken the coroner returned the first inquest. The court
stayed the filing of it and committed the coroner. In King
v. Ripley (*) it appeared that the Lord of the Manor had
used practice to have a return of felo de se made but the
court directed that the administrator should traverse the
return.
In King v. Solway (y) the deceased had drowned him-
self and the inquest found him non compos mentis because
it is more generally supposed that a man in his senses would
not be felo de se, but a melius inquirendum was refused (2).
In King v. Atkinson (a) the court went so far as to say
that where the coroner had been indicted for malpractice
the quashing of the return and the grant of the melius
should be stayed until the determination of the indictment.
(v) i Ventris, 181 (1671) s. c.; i Modern, 82
(o>) i Strange, 69 (1718).
(x) Skinner, 45 pi. 16; 2 Jones, 198 (1680).
(y) 3 Modern, 100 pi. 61 (1683).
(*) See 2 Levinz, 140; i Sid. 225, 259; i Salkeld, 377.
(a) 12 Modern, 496 (1702).
EFFECT OF INQUEST AND RETURN 131
There is some doubt as to what was done if the jury
misbehaved. The case of King v. Heathershall (6) seems
to say there should be a melius inquirendum. If they found
facts totally unwarranted by the evidence this seems to be
so (c). But upon a surmise that the coroner ought to
have found the deceased felo de se and has not, the court
would refuse a melius inquirendum. But this was often
denied, for it was claimed to be within the satute of 28
Edward III, chapter 9 (d). Yet it has been held that if the
coroner omit to find the goods of a felo de se, there may be
a melius inquirendum (e) or even if he find them erroneously
(/). But there could be no melius inquirendum awarded on
the statute of 34 Edward III, chapter 14.
Sect. 58. Hawkins heads the thirty-third section of
the ninth chapter of his Pleas of the Crown "what high
credit the law gives to an inquisition death before a cor-
oner" (#). Anciently the verdict had more weight than
at present and judges would not receive a verdict acquitting
a person found guilty by the coroner's jury unless the petit
jury found the person did the fact but was not guilty for
other reasons or unless they found by what other means the
party came to his death (h). But this opinion became obso-
lete (*'). It is agreed that the judges cannot compel a jury
to make such a further inquiry on acquittal of a defendant
from any other indictment "because it doth not in such man-
ner appear of record by any such inquisition that a person is
dead." It seems hard to reconcile the practice of compelling
a jury to find such further matter with reason in any case
(&) 3 Modern, 80 (1685).
(c) The King v. The Coroner, Comberback, 2 (1686). But this
hardly seems fair to the coroner as he must accept their findings, ante,
Sect. 52.
(d) See King v. Heathershall, 3 Modern, 80 (1680) and 2 Male's
Pleas of the Crown, 59.
(*) I Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 415.
(/) Palmer v. Humphrey, Croke's Elizabeth, 584, pi. 13.
(0) See Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, Book 2, cap. 52.
(h) 13 Edward IV, 3 pi- 7! 37 Assize 13; " Henry IV, 93; M
Henry VII, 2b Fitzherbert, Coroners, 213; Staundeford's Pleas of ne
Crown, 181, and Book 2, cap. 52; 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 301 ;
Finch, 415; Brooke's Abridgment Title Appeal, 42, 112, Ibid
Indictment, 10, 35; Ibid Title Coroners, 32-39-52-117. 2 Hawkins s
Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 33.
(1) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9. Sect. 33.
132 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
unless it appear in the course of the evidence by what other
means not mentioned in the indictment (or inquisition) the
party lost his life (). On first blush it would seem if there
was any evidence on which an acquittal could be based
there must be some on which to rest the further finding, but
on putting the case of a pure alibi the mirage disappears.
Chitty says (/) the finding of a grand jury is of more weight
than that of the coroner; the reason which he gives, how-
ever, is wholly inadequate. He says it is because the court
will at discretion bail after return of murder by the cor-
oner's inquest, but never after the same return by a grand
jury, but the reason of that is simply that in the former case
the court has before it the evidence upon which the find-
ing was based, but not in the latter case. In Rex v. Dai-
ton (m) a boy had the misfortune to kill his schoolfellow
and the coroner's jury found it murder. Habeas corpus
was brought and the boy was taken before Lord Raymond
at his home. The chief justice, after examining the depo-
sitions before the coroner admitted the boy to bail saying
the depositions were a guide to the court's discretion and he
himself had refused bail to Mr. Clifton, although the ver-
dict was only manslaughter, for the depositions made it out
murder. However, it now "appears from the best authors
that the inquests of the coroner are in no case con-
clusive and that one affected by them either collaterally or
otherwise may deny their authority and put them in issue"
(n). The only verdicts upon which any doubt has been
entertained are those of flight and felo de se (0). It is prob-
ably still true, however, that an inquisition which acquits
a man cannot be traversed (/>), that is to say, the king
(k) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 33.
(/) I Criminal Law, 164.
(m) 2 Strange, 911 (1722), and see Rex v. Magrath, 2 Strange,
1242 (1746).
() 3 Keb., 489.
(0) Jervis on Coroners, 318.
(P) Anonymous, r Ventris, 239 "but it is agreed that no inquisi-
tion can be traversed to make a man felo de se who is found not to be
so. So if they find him non compos mentis neither the crown nor its
grantee can traverse it." i East's Pleas of the Crown, 389 ; Anonymous,
I Ventris, 239; Foster's Criminal Law, 266. If the inquest which acquits
cannot be traversed parallel proceedings can be taken before the
grand jury.
EFFECT OF INQUEST AND RETURN 133
never traverses (q). High credit was given to the findings
"felo de se" and "fungam fecit" (r). Occasionally we
find authority to the effect that "the coroner's inquest is
conclusive" 0), and by the weight of authority fungam
fecit is not traversable (/). This doctrine rests on a
dictum in 8 Edward IV quoted by Hale and Staundeford,
but there appears to be no instance in which the court has
acted upon it (M). The reason which is usually given to
prove that the finding of fugam fecit is not traversable is
that all persons of the neighboring towns are bound to
attend, from twelve years old and upward so that unless
the suspect has fled he must be present (z/). There is
much authority for the proposition that the finding of felo
de se is not traversable (w~), but the better opinion seems
to be that it is (*). As to the finding of fugam fecit the
question still remains how can it be final, taken as it is in the
absence of the party (y). Indeed, upon principle there is
(q) King v. Storke, 2 Keble, 800 (1679) ; Anoymous, i Ventris.
239-
(r) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 34, as to the con-
clusiveness of felo de se, see i Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 417.
(j) Rex v. Parker, 3 Keble, 489; 2 Levinz, 140, but see contra, a
Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 60.
(/) Fitzherbert's Abridgment Title Coroners, 151 ; 8 Edward IV, 4;
2 Levinz, 141 ; Brooke's Abridgment Title Traverse, sans do 229, 3
Keble, 564-6 ; i Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 363, 414-5-7 ; 2 Hale's Pleas
of the Crown, 63-64, 301 ; King v. Parker, 2 Levinz, 141 (1675) ; Anony-
mous, i Ventris, 239, 278, 352; Brooke's Abridgment Title Coroners,
151; Title Traverse, 229; Hale's Summary, 170; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of
the Crown, c 9, Sect. 54; Popham, 209; i Rolle's Reports, 217; 2 Sid-
erfen, 90, contra 2 Siderfen 101.
(M) See Hale's remarks, i Pleas of the Crown, 417.
(v) 2 Coke's Institutes, 147-8; 3 Keble, 566; i Hale's Pleas of the
Crown, 363, and see 3 Coke's Institutes, 55 ; 2 Levinz, 141 ; Hale's Sum-
mary, 29; r Ventris, 181-2; 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect
54, and i Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 417.
(a/) Some say that no inquest finding felo de se may be traversed,
8 Edward IV, 4b; i Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect, n and
cases there cited, Brook's Abridgment Title Coroners, 151 ; King v.
Parker, 2 Levinz, 141 (1675); 2 Levinz, 152; 2 Keble, 859; 2 Siderfen,
90-101-144; 2 Jones, 198, i Ventris, 278; 3 Keble, 564-566-604-800
Skinner, 45 pi. 16 ; Coke's Pleas of the Crown, 55 ; Staundeford's Pleas
of the Crown, c. 52, but see cases cited in Rex v. Roupel, Cowper,, 458,
and Rex v. Heaton, 2 Durnford and East, 184.
(*) 8 Edward IV, 4; 45 Edward III, reported i Hale's Pleas of
the Crown, 417; King v. Aldenham, 3 Keblc, 564, 566 (1675). where
Hale said no inquest was not traversable but fugam fecit and that by
estopple and see 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c 9, Sect. 55.
(y) Yet an ordinary judgment by default is final.
134 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
no reason why fugam fecit found by the coroner is not
as traversable as any other inquisition and the doubt in
this respect rests on no better foundation than the dictum
before alluded to (2).
"Lord Coke is of opinion that an inquisition of felo
de se taken before the coroner super visum corporis is not
traversable and is conclusive upon the executors and ad-
ministrators of the deceased (a) but the reasons suggested
by Staundeford (&) whom he quotes, are very unsatisfac-
tory. Lord Hale is of a different opinion (c) conceiving
it to be a great hardship that an inquisition which is no
more than an inquest of office taken perhaps behind the
backs of the executors or administrators of the deceased
should be conclusive (rf) and he cites Barclee's case (e) and
a record in the Exchequer (/) where a creditor of one Paige
who was found felo de se by a coroner's inquisition tra-
versed the finding and the jury found that he was not felo
de se, from which he concludes that the inquisition is as
much traversable as a presentment before the justices of
oyer and terminer or of the peace, which is admitted to be
traversable." It seems indeed to be now fully established
(g} that such an inquisition may be removed into the
King's Bench by certiorari and traversed by the executors
or administrators of the deceased (h).
(*) Jervis on the Law of Coroners, 319; i Saunders, 363; i East's
Pleas of the Crown, 391.
(a) 3 Coke's Institutes, 55.
(&) Pleas of the Crown, 183.
(O Anonymous, i Ventris, 239, and see I Ventris, 278; King v.
Ripley, 2 Jones, 198; 2 Levinz, 152.
(d) i Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 416-417.
(*) i Siderfen, 90, 101 (1650).
(/) 45 Edward III, Walter Paige's Case and see 8 Edward IV, 4.
(0) King v. Ripley, Skinner, 45 pi. 16 s. c. ; 2 Jones, 198 (1680) ;
3 Keble, 604; King v. Aldenham, 2 Levinz, 152; 3 Keble, 564, 566, pi.
84 (1675); Anonymous, i Ventris, 182, 239, 278, 352; Popham, 209; I
Rolle's Reports, 217; 7 Modern, 10; 3 Keble, 489; 8 Edward IV, 43;
King v. Storke, 2 Keble, 800 (1679); Brooke's Abridgment Traverse
sans do, 209; i East's Pleas of the Crown, 389; i Hale's Pleas of the
Crown, 416; i Wms. Saunders, 363.
(h) King v. Aldenham, 2 Levinz, 152, sub nom Anonymous, i
Ventris, 278; Freeman's Reports, 4IQ-443 (1675). The reason is his
being absent from the inquest is in law flight, Anonymous, Freeman's
Reports, 419, pi. 556 (1675). Even though Coke holds contrary,
Greton's Case, Freeman's Reports, 433, pi. 608. But see Queen v. Clerk,
EFFECT OF INQUEST AND RETURN 135
But many of the cases which say the finding of felo
de se is traversable say that of fugam fecit is not. But
even fugam fecit has been held traversable (t) and yet we
find the proposition that flying for felony found before the
coroner upon indictment is not traversable, but such flying
found upon indictment before the commission is (fc).
Where a felon was found to have fled, super visum
corporis, he forfeited his goods even if he was found not
guilty by the petit jury (/). There is an old theory that if
the petit jury specify that the accused is not only not
guilty but that he made no flight his goods would not be for-
feited (m). Certainly if they did so specify there was
no forfeiture (n}. The rule that the accused should forfeit
even though found not guilty seems harsh and unreason-
able. There are two reasons upon which this harsh rule
was based: I. because the inquest was not traversable; 2.
because by the inquest the goods became lawfully vested in
the king (0), and once so vested could not be divested. It
I Salkeld, 377, pi. 21 (1702), King v. Parker, 2 Levinz, 140, and King
v. Ripley, 2 Shower, 199. In Skinner, 45 Hale, C. J., said he did not
approve of a melius inquirendum where felo de se has been returned
for the inquest is traversable and it was resolved per cur that an in-
quisition before the coroner taken super visum corporis that finds that
the person was felo de se and non compos mentis may be travesed, but
fugam fecit in an inquisition before the coroner cannot be traversed,
Anonymous, I Ventris, 278 (1675).
(') Jeryis on the Law of Coroners, 282-4; i Saunders, 362; 2
Burn's Justices, 43 (Edition of 1845).
(k) 36 Henry VI, 31; Brooke's Abridgment Traverse, 383, pi.
229 ; 6 Viner's Abridgment, 252, and see also 6 Edward IV, 43. An in-
quisition on a melius inquirendum is traversable, but not super visum
corporis, Carthew, 72, 73, cited in King v. Heatherfall, 6 Viner's Abridg-
ment, 256, for the justice takes the presentment of felo de se, when the
coroner cannot.
(/) Dyer, 238; Hale's Summary, 171; Jenkins Century Cases, 4, c.
9; 2 Blackstone's Reports, 981, and see Coke's Entries, 356, and i Rich-
ard III, 6, for, says Britton, flight throws the guilt upon him so he
ought to forfeit; Britton, c. 14, Sect. 2; 22 Assize, 76; 13 Henry IV,
13; 3 Edward III, 33; Foxley's Case, 5 Coke's Reports, 109 (1601) ;
Fitzherbert's Abridgment Title Forfeiture, 29, 32, 351 i Hale's Pleas
of the Crown, 363; 2 Ibid, 154; Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, Book
II, cap. 52.
(m) 13 Edward IV, 3b; 14 Henry VII, 2b; they must find by whom
the deceased was killed "which serves as an indictment against an-
other person," 13 Edward IV, 3b.
(n) In Petys Mss. Fragment, a case in the Exchequer, 3 Edward
III, is recited to this effect.
(o) 13 Henry IV, 13 pi. 6; Foxley's Case, 5 Coke's Reports, 109
(1601) ; Anonymous, Dyer, 238, pi. 36 (1565) ; 2 Coke's Institutes, 147;
3 Keble, 564; 2 Levinz, 141.
136 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
has been argued that the finding of fugam fecit should
cause a forfeiture of the goods even though the petit jury
found there was no flight and acquitted the prisoner, the
best reason seeming to be that the first finding was of great-
est force and the flying should not have been given in charge
of the jury upon arraignment (/>). In opposition to this
doctrine there is a record abstracted in Pety's MSS. of a
presentment of fugam fecit by the coroner and of a for-
feiture and seizure in a case of an accessory before the
fact to murder of which, upon arraignment, he was ac-
quitted, and the jury having found that he did not fly, res-
titution was awarded () ; therefore, if there were two sheriffs in the
county, and one was improper, process must be awarded
to the other (q).
Process was awarded to all the coroners as we shall see
later, yet if there be but one coroner in the county process
was directed to him alone (r). If one of the coroners
was challenger then the process must be awarded to the
others (s). If the coroners were all interested then pro-
cess went to elisors appointed by the court () In Fort-
esque's time these elisors were either two clerks of the court
or others of the county who in the presence of the court
upon their oath (M) aver to make an indifferent panel (v).
The award to elisors was unusual. Where the sheriffs and
(n) 22 Henry VI, 4ib. See 4 Modern, 65.
(0) King v. Warrington, i Salkeld, 152 pi. 2 (1692).
(p) Ibid.
(q) Salkeld, 152; 12 Modern, 22;' i Shower, 327; 2 Shower, 262,
286; Lilly's Entries, 483.
(r) Jenkins, 85, pi. 65.
O) King v. Warrington, i Salkeld, 152, pi. 2 (1692) in the reign
of Queen Ann it appeared that the two coroners were renters of the
sheriff and he was interested and this was specially entered on the
roll and a special venire was prayed to the other two coroners nam-
ing them and was awarded with a clause forbidding the two interested
ones from intromitting Ms. cited in Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris, 227.
See i Shower, 328-9; 2 Shower, 286.
(<) 2 Wm. Blackstone's Reports, 911; Umfreville's Lex Corona-
tons, 237, process, but not execution is awarded to elisors. Ibid, 241,
two elisors at least for a venire, a venire awarded to one elisor is
not good, see 2 Henry, VI, 12; Dyer, 367. It is error even after
verdict (1653) C. B. Cory's Notes, Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris, 242.
(M) Quaere, Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris, 238.
(v) Fortesque, ch. XXV.
MINISTERIAL DUTIES OF THE CORONER 141
coroners of particular liberties had been challenged the
process was awarded to the county officer (;). In cities
the rule was but little different from what it was in the
country. If a sheriff of a city in a county were in con-
tempt the attachment went to the coroner, not to the mayor
or chief officer of the corporation in such city or town and
if the offender were out of office the attachment had to be
directed to the new sheriff (.*).
While process and execution had long been awarded to
the coroner the original is supposed to have been first
granted to the coroners in 6 Edv/ard VI (y) where the
original writ of assize was awarded to and executed by
five out of six coroners, one having been challenged on ac-
count of consanguinity to one of the defendants, oyer was
craved of the writ and after argument on demurrer a re-
spondeat ouster was awarded (#). Yet we find as early
as 2 Henry VI (a) an original in trespass was awarded to
the coroners against the sheriff and two others. Again in
1 8 Edward IV (&) and 14 Henry VII (c) originals seem
to have been awarded to the coroners.
When the original had been awarded to the coroner
all subsequent writs had to be so awarded (d) for once pro-
cess had been issued to the coroner the sheriff could not
intromit (e}, for as the old books say, he was no longer
an officer in that case (/). When elisors were once
(w) Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris, 239.
(x) Anonymous, 2 Ventris, 216 (1620).
(y) 1553 Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris, 233.
(z) Plowden, 73; see Jervis on the Law of Coroners, 54.
(a) 1424, 2 Henry VI, 123.
(&) 14/9, 18 Edward IV, 7b.
(c) 1499, 14 Henry VII, 3ib.
(rf) Even though the sheriff have been found not guilty, 2 Henry
VI, i2a, and see 18 Edward IV, 7b and 14 Henry VII, 3ib.
(*j Skinner, 102; 43 Edward III, 26, et per Lee, C J., Palmer,
370 (1624) ; Morgan v. Wye, Croke's Elizabeth, 574 (1594) ', Corne v.
Pastow, Yelverton 15, s. c.; Croke's Elizabeth, 894 (1602). See
Moore, 356; s. c; 5 Coke's Reports, 36; Sairbl v. Candith, Yelverton,
214 (1612); Gregory v. Booker, Croke's Elizabeth, 586 (1598).
(/) Corne v. Pastow, Yelverton, 15, s. c.; Croke's Elizabeth, 894
142 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
appointed neither the sheriff nor the coroner could introntit
(f).
Even if the old sheriff died or were removed and a
new sheriff appointed who was not exceptionable process
must go to the coroner (h), and to issue process to the
new sheriff was deemed error (t) ; nor was it helped after
verdict by the statute of jeo fails (&), but process wrongly
directed to the coroner was so helped (/).
As we have seen the coroner was substitute for the
sheriff and as such might if necessary call in the posse
comitatus (w).
We have observed that in almost all counties there
was more than one coroner and we have also observed that
one coroner might sit to hold an inquest (n). Two cor-
oners ought to be judges of redesseisin, one served to pro-
nounce an outlawry but the entry ought to be made in the
name of all and process should be directed to all (o) for
it took all the coroners to do a ministerial act (/>). It may
be legend that it takes nine tailors to make a man, but it
is certain that it took all the coroners in the county to
make one officer (g). As the coroners were one officer
the act of one was sometimes considered the act of all for
(0) 15 Edward IV, 24; 18 Edward IV, 8.
(h) Comyns Digest Title Officer, G. 13; Moore, 356-422.
() Moore, 356.
() 32 Henry VIII, c 30; see Moore, 356.
(/) Dyer, 367^ the Staute of 33 Henry VIII, c 70, acts in the
same way.
(m) Hobart, 85; Jervis on Coroners, 53.
(n) See ante, Sects. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49.
(o) Jenkins, 85, pi. 65, where it is said all should serve the writ
and see 14 Henry IV, 34, to the same effect. But if there is but one
coroner in the county he will do, Ibid. Staundeford's Pleas of the
Crown, f 533.
(p) 14 Henry IV, 34; Jenkins, 85. pi. 65; 2 Hale's Pleas of the
Crown, 56.
(q) 3 Levinz, 309; see i Modern, 98; in Rex v. Dolby, cited Um-
frevilles Lex Coronatoris, 144, the coroners were directed to return a
special jury which they did, but the tales being required it was returned
by one coroner who happened to be in court. It was objected that the
return must be by all, the' act of one coroner being insufficient where
all were empowered to act ministerially and the validity of the objec-
tion was admitted. See Jervis on Coroners, 55; Staundeford's Pleas
of the Crown, f 533, and Anonymous, Comberback, 435. If there are
four coroners in a county three cannot return the writ, 31 Assize 20.
MINISTERIAL DUTIES OF THE CORONER 143
the purpose of making them liable for misfeasance (r).
They were all liable for an escape (s)> a false return (f),
or an attachment (u), and if one was guilty of malprac-
tice ministerially the court exercised summary jurisdiction
over them all (77). But they were not responsible criminally
unless the act or omission were their own or by them per-
mitted (/). While all the coroners were required to act
ministerially the rule had its limitations; thus one coroner
or the servant (deputy) of one coroner for this purpose
the coroner might appoint a deputy without deed (*) had
authority to make an arrest but the return was made by
all (y) or joined in by all (#). So if there were but two
coroners in a county and process issued to them and one
die the other could not return the writ until another cor-
oner has been elected, but if there were more than two and
one die the remaining coroners could return the writ so
they were plural (a). An arrest was made in the name of
all (b). If one of the coroners were challenged the others
must act (c) ; if therefore the writ be directed to the cor-
(r) I Modern, 98; 2 Modern, 23; Naylor's Case, Freeman, 191;
Staundeford's Pleas of the Crown, 533.
(s) I Modern, 98; 6 Modern, 37, even though Holt did say "tis
mischievous," Anonymous, Comberback, 435 ; Naylor's Case, Freeman,
191-2, pi. 195, and see Taylor v. Clark, 3 Levinz, 399 (1695) A & B
were coroners, C issued a writ to take the sheriff which B did and after-
wards permitted an escape. A had no notice. C sued them both. Holt
C. J. on the trial said that the two coroners made one officer and the
act being a ministerial one was the act of both and directed a verdict
for the plaintiff, but because of the hardship signed a bill of excep-
tions. On the argument, Treby C. J. inclined for the plaintiff and
Powell J. for the defendant and Rookby J. doubted.
(0 Naylor's Case, Freeman, 191-2 pi. 195.
(M) 2 Bl., 911.
(v) 8 Modern, 192.
(w) 8 Modern, 193; Lord Raymond, 1574.
Or) Clecott v. Dennys, Croke's Elizabeth, 67 (1588).
(y) Jenkins, 85, pi. 65 ; 14 Henry IV, 34b, per Hank, J. ; 39 Henry
VI, 41, 2 Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 56; Rich v. Ployer, 2 Shower, 286,
pi. 283 (1683).
(*) 4 Edward IV, 43; Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium, 163; 14
Henry IV, 34, per Hank, J. ; 39 Henry VI, 41.
(o) 14 Henry IV, 353; 31 Assize, 20; 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown,
56.
(&) Jenkins, 85, pi. 65, so where the coroner made the return in
his name alone it was held bad, but the rescuers he returned were taken
on attachment and sent to the fleet, 39 Henry VI, 40.
(c) Queen v. Warrington, I Salkeld, 152, pi. 2.
144 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
oners and one die, the other coroners, if there be more than
one, can serve it ; but where there are only two the survivor
cannot act for he is not "the coroners" (rf), and the same
rule applies where there are more than two and all but
one die (e ).
The ministerial acts of a coroner may be executed on
Sunday, for, says Umfreville (/), otherwise they may
never be executed, yet in Hoyle v. Lord Cornwallis (g), it
was determined that the execution of a writ of inquiry on
Sunday is void.
(rf) Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium, 162-163 N. ; 14 Henry IV, 39.
(e) Ibid.
(/) Lex Coronatoris, 177.
(y) I Strange, 387.
PART II.
The Office and Duties of Coroners in Pennsylvania,
Viewed in the Light of Their Origin.
CHAPTER I.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF CORONERS IN PENNSYLVANIA.
Sect. 61. We have seen the rise and development of
the office of coroner in England, down to the settlement of
Pennsylvania, and looked with considerable care into the
various powers and duties which then and there attached to
the office. We are now to trace the transition of the insti-
tution across the ocean. We are told that the common law
of Pennsylvania is that of England modified to such extent
as the changed conditions of the colonists rendered requi-
site. The reason for this is obvious. The settlers in Penn's
territory brought with them the common law of England
as part of their heritage, but so utterly different were the
conditions they found here that many parts of the common
law were never called into operation while others were
utterly impossible of enforcement. The early history of
the colony seems to show that the good Friends who came
to America had but little need of the law. They seem to
have existed wholly without such minor details as courts,
sheriffs, coroners, constables and bailiffs for a surprising
length of time.
From the absence of law which existed at the first
settlement of the country the office of coroner emerges
full fledged, with certain very definite alterations. These
alterations we shall have occasion to notice during the
course of our consideration of the office and its duties in
Pennsylvania, but certain of them remain to be observed
before we take up the further consideration of the powers
and duties of the coroner today.
One of the changes which was understood from the
beginning found legislative expression in the Act of 1705
(MS)
146 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
(a), namely, that no coroner should take office until he had
taken and subscribed a declaration of his Christian belief,
and an affirmation for the due execution of his office.
The origin of the principal change which was made
remains, however, in more or less obscurity. As we have
already seen (b) it was the custom in England to elect four
or more coroners in each county. When the little colony
on the Delaware began to assume a definite shape and to
need a more complete government it was divided into
three counties, Philadelphia, Chester and Bucks. So few
were the inhabitants at this time that they were all (being
freemen) made members of the general assembly. Such
being the case it would have been absurd to appoint twelve
coroners. Accordingly, in the Frame of Government of
1682 (c) it was provided (rf) that in view of the fact that
it would be burthensome to put the people to frequent elec-
tions the Proprietary would appoint county officers (e) to
hold office so long as they should well behave and from and
after their death or removal from office the people should
elect their successors ; that is to say, they should elect double
the number of persons who were to serve (/), and should
present them to the governor who should "nominate and
commissionate" one to serve in each office. Following out
this idea, Penn, on September 16, 1685, appointed Robert
Hall coroner of the county of Bucks (#), during the same
year James Kemmerly and Griffith Owen were appointed
coroners of the counties of Chester and Philadelphia re-
spectively (h). Of course when their successors were
elected but one coroner was appointed by the governor
for each county and so it has remained to the present day
(a) Act of January 12, 1705-6, Chapter CLXI, 2 Statutes at
Large, 272.
(b) Ante, Sect. 23.
(c) Poore's Federal and State Constitutions, page 1522.
(d) Article XVIII.
(e) "Sheriffs Coroners," etc. Coroners' fees were carefully regu-
lated by a statute passed that year (1682) at Upland, but there seems
to have been no coroner to receive the fees, see Chapter XII, Post.
(/) Article XVII.
(g) Pennsylvania Marriages, 742.
(h) Pennsylvania Marriages, 674-697, it is worthy of note, how-
ever, that sheriffs were appointed for all the counties in 1682.
EARLY HISTORY OF CORONERS IN PENNSYLVANIA 147
(t). The frame of the government of 1696 passes over all
such minor details as coroners, sheriffs or county treas-
urers except as to the oath they are to take. The Charter of
Privileges of 1701 which remained in force until the Revo-
lution provides (&) : "That the freemen in each respective
county at the time and place of meeting for electing their
representatives to serve in assembly may as often as there
shall be occasion chuse a double number of persons to present
to the governor for sheriffs and coroners to serve for three
years if they so long behave themselves well, out of which
respective elections and presentments the governor shall
nominate and commissionate one for each of the said offices
the third day after such presentment or else the first named
in such presentment for each office as aforesaid shall stand
and serve in that office for the time before respectively
limited and in case of death or default such vacancies shall
be supplied by the governor to serve to the end of the
said term," and in case of default in electing succes-
sors the officers in office shall hold over until successors
are duly elected and qualified. Section i of the Act of Jan-
uary 12, 1705-6 (/) provided that the term should be but
() Other evidence of the fact that there has always been but
one coroner in each county is found in the act of 1705, Chapter CLXL
Sect. 2, 2 Statutes at Large, 275, allowed to become a law by lapse of
time, which provides that the coroner of the County of Philadelphia,
shall also be the coroner for the City of Philadelphia. So, the act of
27 January 1749-50, 5 Statutes at Large, 92, confirmed by King in Coun-
cil, May 13, 1751, enacted that until the people of the newly erected
County of Cumberland should elect a coroner, the coroner of Lancaster
should act for them and see similar acts for Berks, n March, 1752,
Sect. 13, 5 Statutes at Large, 138, Northampton, n, March, 1752, Sect.
13, 5 Statutes at Large, 145, Washington, 28 March, 1781, 10 Statutes at
Large, 278, the act of 3 Sept'., 1776, Sect. 7, 9 Statutes at Large, 17,
bridges the gulf between the colonial and state governments by con-
tinuing the county officers in office until new elections or appoint-
ments were had.
(k) Article III, Poore's Federal and State Constitutions, page
1538.
(/) Chapter CLXI, 2 Statutes at Large, 272; this act was somewhat
modified by Sect. I, of the Act of August 24, 1717, which was also
allowed to become a law by lapse of time and by section 2, of the Act
of March 20, 1724-5, 4 Statutes at Large, 19-20. It was repealed by
the Act of 1785, but in the meantime the constitution of 1776 had
practically re-enacted this law ipsa verba, see supra. By the Act
of II March, 1752, confirmed by the King. May 10, 1753, 5 Statutes at
Large, 159, it was made a penal offence for a coroner or candidate to
give strong liquor for a vote for himself and the person so offending
to be incapable of holding office for one year thereafter.
148 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
one year. This act was allowed to become a law by lapse of
time in accordance with the proprietary charter having been
considered by the Queen in Council on October 24, 1709,
and not acted upon. In substance it remained in force until
the enactment of the constitution of 1838 (m).
The county coroner is the only kind of coroner whose
office was found necessary in Pennsylvania. His jurisdic-
tion included the whole ground covered by all different
kinds of coroners in England. Of this jurisdiction we shall
speak later.
(m) The constitution of 1776, Sect. 31 Provided that "sheriffs
and coroners shall be elected annually in each city and county by the
freeman that is to say, two persons for each office one of whom for
each is to be commissioned by the President in Council." The Con-
stitution of 1790, Art. 6, Sect, i, provided "sheriffs and coroners shall be
.it the times and places of election of representative be chosen by the
citizens of each county. Two persons shall be chosen for each office
one of whom for each respectively shall be appointed by the Governor.'
CHAPTER II.
ELECTION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF CORONERS AND VACAN-
CIES IN THE OFFICE.
Election.
Sect. 62. We have now traced the history of the elec-
tion of the coroner in Pennsylcania through the early stages
of its development. The Constitution of 1838 (a) provides
(6) "sheriffs and coroners shall at the times and places of
election of representatives be chosen by the citizens of each
county. One person shall be chosen for each office who shall
be commissioned by the governor."
Under the constitution of 1874, coroners are denom-
inated county officers and are elected as such at the general
election (c). In this way everything unusual or extraor-
dinary in the election of the coroner has ceased to exist.
It would therefore not be profitable to inquire how
coroners are elected. The number of coroners is not
specified in the constitution of 1874, and as that document
overturns the previous government (d) it is difficult to see
upon what ground one coroner is chosen unless it be under
section 2 of the schedule (e}. Nevertheless one coroner
only is elected in each county for a term of four years (ee).
Oath.
Sect. 63. No qualification as to degree or property
ever seems to have been required of the coroner in Pennsyl-
vania, but quite different qualifications have long been en-
forced. The coroner is still sworn (or affirmed) to the
faithful performance of his duties, but in place of the qual-
ification of knighthood or lands a bond is now requisite.
Aside from these qualifications we may assume that if the
(a) Poores Federal and State Constitutions, p. 1557-
(&) Article VI.
(c) Article XIV, Sects, i and 2; Purdon's Digest (i3th Ed.)
202-3.
(rf) Wells v. Bain, 75, Pa. St. 39 (1874) ', Wood's Appeal, 75 Pa.
St. 59 (1874)-
(), but this is limited
by sections 70 and 71 of the act of 1834 (q} which are :
(/) Section 69 of the Act of 15 April, 1834, P. L. 547, provides : "Be-
fore any such bond or recognizance shall be taken by the recorder
of deeds, the sufficiency of the sureties therein named shall be sub-
mitted to and approved of by the judges of the court of common pleas
of the proper county, or by any two of them, for that purpose convened,
who shall certify their approbation of such sureties to the recorder;
and no commission shall afterwards be granted until the Governor
shall have also approved of the sufficiency of such sureties.
(m) By Section 68 of the Act of 15 April, 1834, P. L., 547, which
provides : "every such recognizance entered into by a sheriff or coroner,
shall be taken by the recorder of deeds of the proper county, and re-
corded in his office; and when so recorded, shall be by him trans-
mitted to the secretary of the commonwealth, with a certificate en-
dorsed by such recorder, of its having been duly recorded. See Brown-
field v. Commonwealth, 13 S. & R., 265 (1825).
(n) By section 72, of the Act of 15 April, 1834, P. 547, which pro-
vides : "It shall be the duty of every sheriff and of every coroner, im-
mediately after receiving his commission from the Governor, to deliver
the same to the recorder of deeds of the county by whom the same shall
be recorded at the expense of such sheriff or coroner."
(o) See Section 73, of the Act of 15 April, 1834, P. L. 547- "No,
person elected or appointed to the office of sheriff or coroner, shall
presume to execute any of the duties of such office, before a commis-
sion shall have been duly granted to him, and left for record as here-
inbefore provided, under a penalty of imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months, at the discretion of the court of Quarter Ses-
sions of the county, provided, that such person shall nevertheless be
liable to any person injured by any acts done by him under color of
such office."
(/>) Young v. Commonwealth, 6 Binney 88 (1813). See sect. 62 of
the Act of 15 April, 1834, P. L., 547- By Sect. 63 the amount of the
bond and recognizance is fixed, it varies from $80,000 in Philadelphia
County to $5,000, in Greene, Crawford, Warren, McKean, Clearfield
and Potter. The form of the bond and recognizance is given in the
appendix. The sections here referred to surplant and repeal the Act
of 28 March 1803, P. L., 497.
(q) Act of 15 April, 1834, P. L-. 547-
152 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
"Section 70. Provided, that no judge, clerk or protho-
notary of any court or attorney at law, shall be permitted to
become a surety in such bond or recognizance, and that no
person shall be received as surety for a sheriff and for a
coroner at the same time.
Section 71. Copies of the record of any such bond or
a recognizance, acknowledged and recorded as aforesaid,
and duly certified by the recorder of deeds for the time be-
ing, shall be good evidence in any action brought against
the obligors or cognizors, according to its form and effect,
in the same manner as the original would be if produced
and offered in evidence."
In an action on the bond the execution of it and acting
in office are pritna facie evidence that the sureties have been
approved (r).
All the real estate of the coroner and his sureties in the
same county Is bound by the lien of the recognizance (s).
Suits thereon are still regulated by the act of 1803 (/),
which reads as follows:
"Whenever the commonwealth or any individual or
individuals shall be aggrieved by the misconduct of any
sheriff or coroner it shall and may be lawful as often as the
case may require to institute actions of debt or of scire
facias upon such recognizance and against such sheriff or
(r) Young v. Commonwealth, 6 Binney, 88 (1813) and see Young
v. Commonwealth, 4 Binney, 113 (1811), Dunn v. Commonwealth, 14
S. &R., 431 (1826).
(j) By section 74 of the Act of 15 April, 1834, P- L- 547. "All the
real estate, within the same county, of a sheriff and coroner, and their
respective sureties, shall be bound by a recognizance taken in manner
aforesaid, as effectually as by a judgment to the same amount in any
court of record of such county; and it shall be the duty of every
recorder of deeds, so soon as a sheriff or coroner shall be commis-
sioned, to certify the recognizance taken by him to the prothonotary
of the court of common pleas of the same county, who shall enter the
names of the parties thereto upon his docket, in like manner as judg-
ments are by law directed to be entered."
Such lien is discharged by a judicial sale under a precedent mort-
gage, Sprang v. Commonwealth, 12 Pa. St., 358 (1849). But not by
a sale under a subsequent incumbrance, McKensey's Appropriation, 3
Pa. St., 156 (1846), but see Morris's Estate, 4 Pa. St., 162 (1846). It
does not bind after purchased lands, Pricker's Appeal, I Watts, 393
(1833).
(0 28 March 1803, Sect. 4 P. L., 497, 4 Smith's Laws, 48. This
section is still in force. Commonwealth v. Rainey, 4 W. & S., 186
(1842).
ELECTION, QUALIFICATIONS AND VACANCIES 153
coroner and their sureties, their heirs, executors or admin-
istrators, or actions of debt upon such obligation against
such sheriff or coroner and their sureties, their heirs, exec-
utors or administratcrs, and if upon such suits it shall be
proved what damage (w) hath been sustained and a verdict
and judgment shall be thereupon given (z/), execution shall
issue for so much only as shall be found by the said verdict
and judgment with costs, which suits may be instituted and
the like proceedings be thereupon had as often as damage
shall be so as aforesaid sustained (w). Provided always
that such suit or suits against such sureties, their heirs, ex-
ecutors or administrators shall not be sustained by any
court of the commonwealth unless the same shall be insti-
tuted within five years (x} after tfo date of such obligation
or recognizance" (y}.
() The plaintiff must show some actual loss or damage ; mere mis-
conduct of the officer is not sufficient, Commonwealth v. McCoy, 8
Watts, 153 (1839); Commonwealth v. Conter, 21 Pa. St., 266 (1853);
Commonwealth v. Allen, 30 Pa. St., 49 (1858) ; Commonwealth v. Lelar,
5 Clark, 167 (1852). In an action on the recognizance the judgment is
not for the penalty, but for the damages sustained by the party suing,
Wolverton v. Commonwealth, 7 S. & R., 273 (1821) ; Campbell v. Com-
monwealth, 8 S. & R., 417 (1822) ; McMichen v. Commonwealth, 58 Pa.
St. 213 (1868). A judgment in trover against a sheriff is not conclu-
sive upon his sureties upon the question of damages, Carmack v.
Commonwealth, 5 Binney, 188 (1812).
(v) In an action on coroner's recognizance the judgment is
not for the penalty, but for the damages sustained by the party suing,
Wolverton v. Commonwealth, 7 S. & R., 273 (1821) ; Campbell v.
Commonwealth, 8 S. & R., 417 (1822).
(w) A suit on a coroner's bond must be a separate one for each
individual who has sustained injury, Lynch v. Commonwealth, 16 S.
6 R., 368 (1827). The person who first sues on the official bond of a
coroner is entitled to have his judgment paid first, Christman v.
Commonwealth, 17 S. & R., 381 (1828). But quare what is to happen
where several sue and the last to sue is the first to get judgment.
(*) The time is to be computed from the date of its execution
not from the time of its approval. Wilson v. Commonwealth, 7 W. &
S., 181 (1844). The introduction of a new party by suggestion after
the expiration of the statutory period is not the commencement of a
new suit, Commonwealth v. Springer, 13 W. N. C, 305 (1883). But
this cannot be construed to permit the introduction of a new cause of
action. The lien of a recognizance as against the sureties is gone after
the lapse of five years without suit on the recognizance, although there
may have been a suit on the bond given at the same time. Smith v.
Miller, 13 S. & R., 339 (1825).
(y) See Shaeffer v. Jack, 14 S. & R., 426 (1826). The lien of a
sheriff's recognizance under this act was unlimited both in duration
and extent as to the liability of the principal, Snyder v. Commonwealth,
3 P. & W., 286 (1831). But by the Act of 3 April, 1860. P. L., 650, the
lien is limited to ten years throughout the State and by the Act of 13
April, 1868, P. L., 948, it is limited to five years in Philadelphia, and
154 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
Where one of the sureties for the coroner is desirous
of selling his land the lien of the recognizance may be dis-
charged on a petition to the court of common pleas, setting
forth the sale and praying for the release, if the court is
satisfied with the sufficiency of the other sureties (2).
Vacancies.
Sect. 65. In the frame of Government of 1683 we find
the first mention of vacancies in the office of coroner in
Pennsylvania. That document provides (a) that the gover-
nor shall fill the vacancy until the next general election by
appointment, and such has been the law with immaterial
alterations to the present time (b). When any person who
has been elected coroner fails or refuses to qualify and as-
sume the duties of the office, the office is treated as vacant
while the latter act applies to coroners the former does not, the lien of
a coroner's recognizance, therefore must still be considered as unlimited
as against the coroner himself, except in Philadelphia.
(*) By the Act of 8th June, 1881, P. L., 81, which is as follows:
"That hereafter if the surety for the sheriff or coroner of any county
in this Commonwealth shall make sale of any real estate bound by the
lien of any recognizance and bond as surety for any sheriff or coroner
he may present a petition to the court of common pleas of the county
in which said recognizance and bond was taken accompanied by notice
of such application to his co-sureties setting forth the fact of such sale
and praying for a release of lien of said recognizance and bond upon
the land described in the petition and the said court shall have the
power to release said lien upon said land the court being satisfied of
the sufficiency of the sureties after lien shall have been released."
In Philadelphia County the Act of n April, 1862, Sect, i, P. L., 437,
provides a method of escaping from the obligation of the recognizance
altogether ; it reads as follows :
"That whenever it shall be made to appear to any court in which
suit has been or shall be brought and judgment entered thereon upon
the official bond of a sheriff or coroner against such officer, and his
sureties in the City and County of Philadelphia, that more than five
years have elapsed since the execution of such official bond and that
the claim of all parties claimant in such suit who have become such
within five years from the execution of such official bond have been
satisfied or otherwise finally disposed of, it shall be the duty of the
said court on the application of the said sureties or either of them to
order the judgment entered against such sureties in such suit upon
such official bond for the penalty thereof, to be marked satisfied of
record and the prothonotary of such court shall make such entry on
the judgment index."
(a) Art. XVI, Duke of York's Book of Law, 159.
(b) See the Charter of Privileges, Poore's Federal and State Con-
stitutions, p. 1536; Constitution of 1776, Poore's Federal and State
Constitutions, p. 1540; Constitution of 1790, Poore's Federal and State
Constitutions, p. 1548; Constitution of 1838, Poore's Federal and State
Constitutions, p. 1557; Constitution of 1874; i Purdon's Digest (i3th
Edition) p. in. 5 Purdon's Digest d3th Edition) p. 5197.
ELECTION, QUALIFICATIONS AND VACANCIES 155
and may be filled by the governor until the next general
election (c). If the coroner notoriously absconds, the gov-
ernor may declare the office vacant and appoint a succes-
sor
(c) Under the Act of 5 April, 1842, Sect, n, P. L., 235, and see
Grubb's Case, 3 Pa. J. L. R., 78 (1904).
(d) Under the Act of 24 March, 1846, Sect, i, P. L., 165. In
Erie Co Coroner's Case (op. Atty. Gen.) i Dist. 244, n Pa. C. C. R.,
136 (1892), the attorney general says the governor has power to ap-
point a successor under the Act of 15 May, 1874, P- L., 205, but it
would seem that the office being vacant the governor may appoint a
successor without the aid of an enabeling act.
CHAPTER III.
THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF CORONERS.
Sect. 66. As we have already noticed, when the office
of coroner emerges from the obscurity which surrounds
the early colonial law of Pennsylvania, we find it has under-
gone certain very definite changes. Appeals never formed
a considerable item in Pennsylvania law and it would seem
the coroner's duties in that regard were never transplanted
to America. Wreck of the sea, also an important part of
the coroner's jurisdiction, in a commonwealth of so narrow
a water front as early Pennsylvania, naturally played a
very unimportant part. Treasure trove seems also to have
played an insignificant part, while deodand and forfeiture
in Pennsylvania, if they existed at all (a), have long been
obsolete. Robbed thus of the major portion of his ancient
jurisdiction, the Pennsylvania coroner is limited in his com-
mon law duties to the holding of inquests of death and of
prison breach. This latter power seems to have fallen into a
state of desuetude, but though it probably never was exer-
cised in Pennsylvania, we can see nothing in the altered
conditions here which should take it from the coroner.
During colonial times the legislature seems to have
felt the powers of the coroner had been too much reduced
and added various duties quite inconsistent with the ancient
character of the office. Thus the act which established the
old court of errors and appeals (b) provided that the coro-
ner should attend its sessions and established means for
compelling his attendance in case of neglect. The coroner
was also at one time compelled to attend the sessions of
the colonial supreme court and the special courts of oyer
and terminer (c). The provincial government, moreover,
(a) Deodands never existed in Pennsylvania and forfeiture has
been practically abolished.
(fc) The Act of 28 Feby., 1780, 10 Statutes at Large, 57, which was
repealed by the Act of 3 April, 1791, Chapter 1575, and see the Act of
i March, 1780, 10 Statutes at Large, 78.
(c) Sect. X of the Act of 28 Feby. 1710-11, 2 Statutes at Large,
314, repealed by the Queen in Council February 20, 1713-14.
(156)
POWERS AND DUTIES OF CORONERS 157
gave the coroner extensive duties at elections (d). These
powers passed away, not because of legislation intended to
cut down the duties of the coroner, so much as by the crea-
tion of other officers to meet changing conditions with whose
jurisdiction those duties were more in accord.
No general act regulating the duties of coroner was
ever passed (e), and so the coroner has lost his ancient
characteristic of collector of the king's revenue and has
grown in Pennsylvania to be the county officer whose duty
it is to investigate the cause of death of those who come
to a sudden and violent end (/).
Sect. 67. One of the most striking differences between
the powers of the coroner in England and those of the
same officer in Pennsylvania, is that in the latter he has no
power as a committing magistrate (), and even then it
is optional with the justice whether he act or not (q), for
the words of the act are that it shall be lawful for the
justice to hold the inquest. But he is only to hold it,
first, where there is no lawfully appointed coroner (r),
second, or where the coroner is absent from the county
or unable to attend at the time and place where the inquest
must be held (s), or third, where the office of the coroner
(f) is more than ten miles distant from the place where
the death occurred or the body was found (u). It is,
moreover, to be observed that the jurisdiction of the justice
is substitutional and therefore he has no jurisdiction where
the coroner or his deputy has actually taken cognizance of
the case (v}. But once the justice has started his inquest
(n) The difficulty is largely removed by the deputy coroners act
vide, Post, Sect. 76.
(0) Coroner's Inquests, 28 Pa. C. C. R. ( 428 (1903) ; Approval of
Coroner's Inquests, 7 Dist, 566, s. c. 20 Pa. C. C. R., 660; 2 Docket,
65, (1896) ; Lee's Case, 9 Pa. C. C. R., 474 (1891) ; Pf out's Case, 7 Pa.
C C R., 265 (1889).
(p) Coroner's Inquests, 28 Pa. C. C. R., 428 (1903) ; Burn's Case,
S Pa. C. C. R., 548 (1888).
(q) Coroner's Inquests, 28 Pa. C. C. R., 428 (1903) ; Pfout's Case,
7 Pa. C. C. R., 265 (1889) ; Burn's Case, 5 Pa. C. C. R., 548 (1888).
(r) Pfout's Case (supra), Lee's Case (supra), Approval of Cor-
oner's Inquest (supra), Coroner's Inquests ( supra).
(s) Ibid.
(t) Article XIV, Sect. IV, of the State Constitution does not re-
quire the coroner to keep his office in the county town, as it does other
county officers.
() Pfout's case (supra), Lee's Case (supra), Approval of Cor-
oner's Inquests (supra), Cochrane's Inquest, 12 Dist., 477, s. c. 27
Pa. C. C. R., 282; 2 Pa. J. L. R., 27 (1903) ; Coroner's Inquest (supra).
(v) Arnold's Case 4 Pa. J. L. R., 49 (1905), even where the
coroner only telephoned he was coming.
CORONERS' DEPUTIES 169
the coming of the coroner does not oust (w) his jurisdic-
tion, and if the coroner afterwards takes an inquest it is
absolutely void (x).
The inquest by the justice of the peace being purely a
creature of statute, the return must show on its face that
the justice had jurisdiction (y) by reason of the facts being
within one of the provisoes of the statute (2). It cannot
be presumed (a). The justice's returns of the facts upon
which his jurisdiction rests is, however, conclusive ; but it is
not conclusive of the necessity of holding the inquest (b).
Once the jurisdiction of the justice has attached, he
is to be governed by the same rules and have the same rights
and powers, duties and liabilities as the coroner (c). This
is the general rule as laid down by the weight of authority,
but a better statement of the law seems to be found in two
cases. In re Missimer (d} the court said, "the act of
1841 does not invest the justice of the peace with all the
functions of coroner * * * the justice does not become
(a;) Ibid.
(x) Bracton, f I2ib, Statute 4 Edward I, Sect. 2; i Statutes of
the Realm, 40 (1275). In force in Pennsylvania Report of the Judges,
3 Binney, 601.
(y) Reitlinger's Case, 2 Kulp. 127; 14 Lane. Bar, 123; 3 York,
101 ; ii Luz. L. Reg. 157 (1882) ; Coroner's Inquest, i Pa. C. C. R. 677 I
s. c. 2 Del. Co. 446-475; 3 Kulp. 451 ; 3 Lane. L. R. 70 (1885), which
follows Coroner's Inquest, i Pa. C. C. R. 14 (1885); Marvin Shaft
Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R. 10 (1887) ; Pf out's Case, 7 Pa. C. C. R. 265
(1889) ; Lee's Case, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 474 (1891) ; Approval of Coroner's
Inquests, 7 Dist. 566; s. c. 20 Pa. C. C. R.66o; 2 Docket, 65 (1806) ; Metz-
ger's Inquest, 8 Dist. 573 (1889) ; Coroner's Inquest, 28 Pa. C. C. R. 428
(1903) ; Grubb's Case, 3 Pa. J. L. R. 78 (1904); but where jurisdiction
does not appear on the face of the inquest it may be sent back to the
Justice for amendment, Coroner's Inquest, i Pa. C. C. R. 14; 3 Kulp.
451 ; 2 Del. Co. 446; 3 Lane. L. R. 70 (1885), and the Court will take
judicial notice that one town is more than ten miles distant from an-
other, Pickett v. Erie County, 19 W. N. C. 60; 3 Pa. C. C. R. 23 (1887),
contra.
(z) The Justice may have other powers than those set out in the
act, though these decisions are wholly inconsistent with the existence
of such powers.
(a) Grubb's Case, 3 Pa. J. L. R. 78 (1004).
(b) Reitlinger's Case, 2 Kulp. 127; s. c. 14 Lane. Bar, 123; 3 York,
101 ; ii Luz. L. Reg. 157 (1882).
(c) Coroner's Inquests, 28 Pa. C. C. R. 428 (1903); Reitlinger's
Case (supra), Lee's Case (supra), Coroner's Inquests, i Pa. C. C. R. 14;
s. c. 3 Kulp, 451, 2 Del. Co. 446, 3 Lane. L. R. 70 (1885) ; Coroners
Inquests, I Pa. C. C. R. 667; 2 Del. Co. 475 (1885) ; Pfout s Case 7
Pa C C R 265 (1889) ; Approval of Coroners' Inquests, 7 I
s. c. 20 Pa. C. C. R. 660; 2 Docket, 65 (1896).
(rf) 20 Mont. 200; 3 Pa. J- L. R. 88; 18 York, 115 (1904)-
170 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
a coroner, but in certain specific cases performs the same
duties that are required of the coroner. * * * How, then,
can it be said that the giving of additional powers to the
coroner .confers like powers on the justice of the peace?"
<).
Sect. 75. When we consider this act in the light of
our understanding of the duties of the justice of the peace
in England a curious question arises upon which there
are no decided cases. Should the body not be found, of
course the coroner cannot hold his inquest (/) for the
coroner's inquest, as we have seen, must be super visum
corporis (g). In England, under such facts, it became the
duty of the justices of the peace or of oyer and terminer or
of the King's Bench to enquire, or the King's Bench might
appoint a special commission to enquire or the grand jury
might enquire (h) ; but these enquiries are not, properly
speaking, "inquests" (i). In view of the act of 1841, it is
doubtful whether or not the justices of the peace may act at
all in Pennsylvania, except under its provisions, upon the
principle that it is the only legislation upon the justice's pow-
ers in such cases and unius expressit alterius exclusit, al-
though before the act he was thought to have like powers
with the justice in England (&). Ordinarily it might be ar-
gued that an act passed expressly widening the duties of an
office could not be held to narrow them, but this is met with
innumerable authorities, dicta purely obiter, to be sure, to
the effect that the justice's only power concerning inquests
is that conferred by the act of 1841. These decisions are,
to be sure, of little value or authority; there is not one
by an appellate court and in not one is the ancient power of
(f) And see also Coroner's Inquests, i Pa. C. C. R. 14; 3 Kulp.
451; 2 Del. Co. 446; 3 Lane. L. R. 70 (1885) : "I do not think that
justices of the peace have the same right to exercise the coroner's
judicial functions as the coroner himself has." So if the neighbors
will pay for an inquest by a justice he must take it, sed quare.
(/) 27 Assize, 55; 4 Blackstone's Commentaries, 274; 2 Hawkins's
Pleas of the Crown, 42.
(g) i Blackstone's Commentaries, 348.
(A) Stanlack's Case, i Ventris, 182; s. c. i Modern, 82 (1671);
Anonymous, i Ventris, 352 (1680), and see 2 Roll's Abridgment, 96
.30; i Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 27, Sects. 12 and 13.
(i) 2 Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, c. 9, Sect. 23.
(*) Ex parte Schulz, 6 Wharton, 269 (1841).
CORONERS' DEPUTIES 171
the justices to hold inquests not super visum corporis, where
the body is missing, mentioned. These things would of
themselves detract from the value of the decisions, but
they are so sweeping and so notoriously ill-considered in
other respects that we are almost tempted to doubt their
authority in all respects. Yet even so we are left in doubt
as to whether or not a justice has a right to enquire under
facts such as we are considering. If the justice may not
inquire the justices of oyer and terminer may, but it is
doubtful whether or not a court of oyer and terminer
would inquire; it has no right to delegate its power. The
supreme court as standing in the place of the Court of King's
Bench might seem to have power to inquire or to appoint
a commission to inquire, but in view of the fact that its
original jurisdiction is expressly stipulated and limited by
the constitution of 1874 (/) it could, of course, not ex-
ercise the power to inquire, though it might appoint a
commission. Of course the grand jury could inquire, but
the grand jury's inquest is not comparable with that of
the coroner. The purpose of the grand jury's quest is
utterly different from that of the coroner's as we shall
see later. The grand jury, in all probability, would not
inquire unless crime were strongly suspected, whereas, as
we shall see later, some cases require the action of the
coroner even though no crime be suspected. In such cases
we are forced to conclude the justices of the court of oyer
and terminer are the only authority in which is vested the
power to inquire.
Sect. 76. Ten years after the decision of ex parte
Schulz which gave rise to the system of inquests by a jus-
tice of the peace, still another method of meeting the de-
ficiency of coroners in Pennsylvania was devised by the leg-
islature. By the act of 1852 (w)the coroner of Lancaster
County was empowered to appoint any number of deputies
to act for him in that county. This act was the opening
wedge. A decade later the act of 1841 was repealed as
to Northampton County and deputies were authorized to
(/) Article V, Sect. 3.
(m) 3 April, 1852, Sect. 20, P. L. 246.
172 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
be appointed (n). This act was extended to other coun-
ties (0). In 1864 an act was passed giving the coroner
of Chester County limited authority as to the appointment
of deputies (/>). In 1889 an attempt was made to extend
the system of deputy coroners over the entire state (4).
Grave doubts were expressed as to the constitutionality of
the act (r). In 1891 the case of Commonwealth v. Grier
brought up squarely the constitutionality of the act of
1889. A deputy coroner of Allegheny County, alleging
that he had been both generally and specially deputized to
act for the coroner both in general and for this particular
case, asked for his fees which the county comptroller re-
fused to certify. The deputy took the case to court. The
question at once arose whether or not the deputy coroner
is a county officer. The court said:
"The act of 1889 says that the coroner may appoint
any number of persons to act for him in his place and stead,
that is, that the deputy may do whatever the coroner may
do. This includes the power to act as the substitute for the
sheriff, and wherever the discretion and judgment of the
coroner are required the deputy is to have the power to
exercise them as if he were the coroner. The fact is that
the deputy was generally authorized to act and the fact that
he was authorized to act in this particular case does not,
(n) In such sections as the coroner deems necessary, Act of I May,
1861, Sects. I and 2, P. L. 560.
(o) To Schulykill by the Act of 14 Feby., 1863, Sect. I P. L. 30;
to Bucks by the Act of 21 March, 1873, Sect, i, P. L. 348.
(/>) Act of 17 March, 1864, Sect, i, P. L. 21, and see the Act of
22 March, 1867, P. L. 532, as to Phila. County, and the Acts of 30
Jany., 1866, P. L. 6, and 28 June, 1871, P. L. 1380, as to Schuylkill
and Mercer Counties. The Act of 19 April, 1856, P. L. 470, provides
that no justice in Allegheny County shall hold an inquest unless it is
impracticable to obtain the personal attendance of the coroner after
notice given to him, or reasonable and proper efforts made to give him
notice of the death.
(g) Act 9 May, 1889, P. L. 162. But it has been said this act
does not apply to counties having local laws, Grove's Case, 26 Pa.
C. C. R. 449 (1900).
(r) Commonwealth v. Grier, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 444 (1891) ; Fogerty
v. Schuylkill County, 13 Pa. C. C. R. 454 (1893) ; Eckard v. Fayette
County, 5 Dist. 371 ; s. c. 43 P. L. J. 461 (1896) ; Fayette County Deputy
Coroner's Case, 7 Dist. 568; 20 Pa. C. C. R. 641 ; 46 P. L. J. 2 (1898) ;
Troutman v. Chambers, 9 Dist. 533 (1900), as to counties having over
150,000 inhabitants. The second section, which is still in force, is un-
constitutional, Commonwealth v. Grier (supra).
CORONERS' DEPUTIES 173
for the purposes of this case make any difference. If then
he has all the powers of the county coroner, he is a county
officer, he cannot be compensated by fees, for the consti-
tution requires that he shall be paid a salary; besides he
must be elected. But suppose he is not a county officer
then he must be either a deputy or clerk; if he is either
he cannot be compensated by fees, for the constitution ex-
pressly forbids that, as do the acts of assembly. Salaries
are stated sums for stated periods and cannot be made
synonymous with fees, and besides, in the large counties
like Philadelphia and Allegheny the coroner could ap-
point an indefinite number of "deputies whose fees would
eat up all the excess over the sum sufficient to pay salaries
and so defeat the very object of the act, which is to pay
salaries out of the fees and leave the balance as a fund for
the benefit of the taxpayers. Again, under this system it
would be possible for the deputy to secure a larger income
than the coroner himself. But the main case against the
act is that its title does not clearly express the subject-mat-
ter covered by it."
The title of the act is "An act to provide for the ap-
pointing of deputy coroners in the several counties of this
Commonwealth." "Now what notice did the title of the
act of 1889 give to counties of over 150,000 people that
deputy coroners were to be paid by fees and that the
whole system fixed by the act of 1876 was changed as
far as coroners were concerned? No one hearing the title
read would receive any notice of how they were to be ap-
pointed or paid. But another difficulty about the act is, does
it apply to Allegheny County at all ? Does it not apply only
to such counties where coroners are and were at the time
paid by fees?" And then he quotes the second section of
the act to show that it means only those counties where
the coroner is paid by fees. "The same shall be paid from
such funds and at such places as such fees of the said cor-
oner are now by law payable." In counties which have
over 150,000 people there are no fees payable to the cor-
oner, so how can there be any for the deputy. The lan-
guage can apply to counties having less than 150,000, but
174 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
it is very ambiguous when applied to counties having more.
"We are of opinion that the proviso of the act of 1889
applies only to counties already having deputies and that
this county is not acting under special laws."
To remedy the flaws thus found in the act of 1889, the
act of 1893 (s) was passed; it provides:
"Sect. i. That from and after the passage of this
act the regularly elected and duly qualified coroner in
counties of this commonwealth may appoint one or more
deputies to act in his place and stead as he may deem proper
and necessary.
"Sect. 2. Such deputy or deputies so appionted shall
have like powers to hold inquests, to select, summon and
compel the attendance of jurors and witnesses and to ad-
minister oaths."
In the first place it is to be noticed that this act does
not supply or repeal the second section of the act of 1889,
but only the first section (f). The question raised in Com-
monwealth v. Grier (M) does not seem to have been an-
swered. The question still remains, is or is not the
deputy coroner a county officer? If he is, the act is uncon-
stitutional and void (v), and it seems impossible to escape
the conclusion that the deputy coroner is a county officer.
There is a question which necessarily arises under the
act of 1893, and that is in how far does it effect the act of
1841. In Reitnauer's Inquest (w) the question arose whether
where the coroner has appointed deputies and divided up the
county so that no place is more than ten miles from the
office of any deputy coroner (and of these facts the court
will take judicial notice) the justice of the peace is ousted
from his jurisdiction? Endlich, J., said:
(j) Act of 6 June, 1893, Sects, i and 2, P. L. 330.
(0 Fayette County Deputy Coroner's Case (supra).
() 9 Pa. C. C. R. 444 (1891).
(v) See Constitution of 1874, Article XVI, Sect, i; I Purdon's
Digest (l3th Edition), 203; Commonwealth v. Dauphin County Com-
missioners, 23 Pa. C. C. R. 646; s. c. sub non Commonwealth v. Smith,
9 Dist. 350; 3 Dauphin, 159; 7 North, 255; 6 Lack. L. N. 151 (1900) ;
Porter v. Shields, 200 Pa. St. 241 (1901).
(w) 14 Pa. C. C. R. 46 (1894).
CORONERS' DEPUTIES 175
"I can find no warrant for an affirmative answer to
that question. It is a general rule of statutory interpre-
tation that an enactment will not be held to change the
existing law unless the intention to do so be disclosed
with irresistible clearness. * * * The act of 1889 con-
tains no expressions which as affecting the right of a jus-
tice of the peace to hold an inquest and be paid for it, under
the existing laws, satisfy this test. Though there be a
deputy coroner in a district and though he be entitled to
act in the place and stead of the coroner, he is, neverthe-
less, not the coroner, but only his deputy. Even the legis-
lature cannot make that a fact which is not a fact. * * *
No doubt it may oust the justice's jurisdiction where the
office of a deputy coroner is accessible within any given
number of miles. But it has not done so." (#).
But while the legislature has no power to make that a
fact which is not a fact, the act of 1841 has in some coun-
ties (3;) become practically obsolete.
The fees for the inquests held by a justice of the peace
are only allowable where the court approves the inquest
so that the court has within its discretion the refusal of
fees to such an extent as to make it practically impossible
for the justice to secure fees and so crush the inclination
of the justices to hold inquests. By this means the more
logical method of managing inquests throughout the county
has been restored and we are where England was in the
time of King Edward I, there being several, an undeterm-
inate number, of coroners in every county, except that
we call all but one of them deputy coroners and that they
are not elected.
(*) This case is purely obiter and refuses to decide whether or
not the act applied to Berks County, nor whether there could be a
general and a special deputation under both acts as was claimed.
(y) Montgomery, for example. See article, Philadelphia Evening
Bulletin, August 14, 1906.
CHAPTER V.
THE CORONER'S JURY.
Sect. 77. As in England, so in Pennsylvania, the cor-
oner is aided in his investigations by a jury. The first
question that arises in our minds is how does the coroner
choose his jury. There are elaborate provisions in the
law for the selection of juries to try issues of fact in the
courts of this commonwealth, but these do not apply to the
coroner's jury for two reasons: first, because the cor-
oner's jury does not try an issue of fact, but investigates
a fact, there is no matter before it asserted on the one side
and denied on the other; the duty of the coroner's jury is
to investigate circumstances and declare what truth the evi-
dence before them establishes. But were we to grant for
the sake of argument that the coroner's jury does try an
issue of fact there is a second reason why the laws relating
to the selection of jurors do not apply to the coroner's
jury; that reason is this, the coroner has long since ceased
to be in Pennsylvania what in England he always has
been, to wit, in the strictest sense, a court. It therefore
appears that in Pennsylvania the coroner is at liberty to
choose his jury as seems to him right and proper. In
Philadelphia County the coroner reserves the right to select
any person he pleases without regard to residence or citizen-
ship. But in practice he keeps a list of applicants for
places on the jury and makes out his jury from that list.
The right to disregard residence and citizenship is too
broad. The statute of fourth Edward the first, requires
that the jury be of the four next vills; while that can
hardly be said to apply in Pennsylvania to-day there is no
doubt that under the common law, as we have seen, the
jury must be men of the county. Besides they must be le galls
homines, and aliens are not such. These points, however,
never have been raised.
In practice the coroner's jury in Philadelphia always
is a jury of men of the county.
(176)
THE CORONER'S JURY 177
In Pennsylvania the coroner's jury always has con-
sisted of six (a). They are not challengeable by either
party (b), but, as we have observed in the case of the jury
in England it is the wiser part for the coroner to allow
challenges by either party, for cause, for it is better that
the jurors be challenged than that the inquest be quashed
(c). It is true that since the abolition of outlawry (d)
the principal cause for challenge to coroner's jurors, i. e.
that they are not good and lawful men, is minimized, but
the old precaution is still wise for aliens and convicts (e)
are not proli et legalls. Chosen as they are it is presumed,
as in all modern juries, that the jurymen know nothing of
the case to be investigated. If they do, it is their duty to
so state to the coroner and to become witnesses at the
inquest. Thus purged, the jury is to be sworn or affirmed
(/) super visum corporis (g) by the coroner himself or his
deputy (h) well and truly to inquire into the matter
pending before them and a true verdict to render, accord-
ing to the evidence. It is their privilege to call back any
witness who has testified before them to ask any question
elucidatory of their inquiry and they are entitled to the
opinion of the coroner upon matters of law (). If they
refuse to render a verdict they may be fined (k). What is
to happen if they do not agree is uncertain. In practice they
never do. Until they agree the inquest is incomplete and
therefore not a valid inquest; the coroner, therefore, has
(a) Ex parte Schulz, 6 Wharton, 269 (1841) ; Reitnauer's Case, 14
Pa. C. C R. 46 (1893). The Act of 16 May, 1857, Sect, i, P. L. 536, is
only declaratory of the common law.
(fr) Withipole's Case, Croke's Charles, 134. Jones, 198-9; Ley.,
81 (1628).
(O Ante, Sect. 51.
() the coroner is not thereby
restrained from any part of his duty not mentioned in them
which was incident to his office before (q). In this state
the general understanding of his duty is that he is to in-
quire into the cause of all violent or extraordinary deaths
(r). At first blush the act of i6th April, 1907, P. L. 92
seems to give us a general definition of the coroner's du-
ties. It provides "It shall be the duty of the coroner and
the deputy coroner of any county of this commonwealth
where the cause of a death is of a suspicious nature and
character to cause an investigation of the facts concerning
said death and to make or cause to be made such an
autopsy as the facts of the case demand, by such official."
On first reading the act is wholly unintelligable. Does
it mean that hereafter the coroner and his deputy must
both sit to hold inquests? Evidently that is not the in-
tention of the legislature, but the act provides that they
shall both sit, not that either may. The last three words
mean nothing whatever, and by no contortion of grammar
nor statutory construction can be twisted to fit into any
other part of the section. But looking at the section with
a broad view and a mind freed from the smallness of legal
technicality and the rules of English syntax the act is
wholly in affirmance of the common law and neither con-
Co) The report of the judges in 1808, 3 Binney, 599-601, speaks
thus of 4 Edward I, Section 2 : "This statute is in force except those
parts which state the coroners' duties in the following points, viz. :
making inquiry as to the property of any person or seizing the property
of any person, treasure that is found, appeal of rape or of wounds, or any
other appeals, deodands and wreck of the sea, and also except that part
which provides that lands shall remain in the king's hands until the lord of
the fee have made fine of it." Thus a document which probably never
passed Parliament has become one of the fundamental laws of the Com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania. It has been invariably held a statute of
Pennsylvania, Allegheny v. McClung, 53 Pa. St. 482 (1866); Coroner's
Case, 32 L. I. 142; 3. c. 7 Leg. Gaz. 125; n Phila. 387 (1875) '> Grubb's
Case, 3 Pa. J. L. R. 78 (1904) ; Commonwealth v. Higgins, 5 Kulp, 269
(1889) ; ex parte Schulz, 6 Wharton, 269 (1841).
(P) Per Gibson, C. J., ex parte Schulz, 6 Wharton, 269 (1841).
(g) Ante Sect. 27, note (e).
(r) Lancaster v. Dern, 2 Grant, 252 (1852) ; and see McFadgen v.
Chester County, 10 Pa. C. C. R. 124; s. c. 7 Mont. 149 (1891).
188 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
fers nor removes powers which the coroner did not pre-
viously possess.
It may be said then, to be a little more explicit, that
the coroner's inquest should be held in cases of sudden or
violent death whether it takes place by visitation of God,
by misfortune, by suicide or by the hand of another in
murder, manslaughter, self-defense, or by accident (s), and
all those who die in prison (t). In other words we may
say the duty to hold the inquest arises, I , where the coroner
has cause to suspect () the deceased was feloniously de-
stroyed (v) ; 2, where death was caused by violence (w) ;
3, where he has any ground to suspect that the death was
an unnatural or a suspicious one (x}. Indeed, wherever
there is a possibility that the death was caused by felony or
criminal negligence.
It is sometimes said "when there is no ground for sup-
posing a felonious destruction of the person or where the
surrounding facts and circumstances do not show unlawful
violence or where there are no suspicious circumstances
which would reasonably lead to suspect unlawful violence,
there is no necessity for an inquest and the coroner or
justice of the peace should so return in accordance with
the act of March 30, 1897" (30 '> or where there is no
ground to suspect the death was an unnatural one (z) the
same course should be pursued. Let us consider the rule
(j) Per Reeder, J., Uhler v. Northampton County, i Lehigh Val-
ley Law Report, 213 (1886) ; and see Rentschler v. Schuylkill County
(supra} ; and see ante, Sect. 69.
(/) Rentschler v. Schuylkill County (supra).
(u) Coroners' Inquests, 28 Pa. C. C. R. 428 (1903) ; Burn's Case,
5 Pa. C. C. R. 548 (1881) ; Marvin Shaft Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R. 10
(1887).
(v) Northampton County v. Innes, 26 Pa. St. 156 (1856) ; Coroners'
Inquests, 28 Pa. C. C. R. 428 (1903); Cochrane's Inquest, 12 Dist.
477! s. c. 27 Pa. C. C. R. 282; 2 Pa. J. L. R. 27 (1903) ; Marvin Shaft
Inquest (supra).
(w) Commonwealth v. Harmon, 4 Pa. St. 269 (1846) ; Cochrane's
Inquest (supra), "violent or extraordinary"; Lancaster v. Dern (supra),
but some add that is unlawful violence"; Coroners' Inquests (supra),
"by another person" ; Marvin Shaft Inquest (supra) .
(x) Coroners' Inquests (supra); Marvin Shaft Inquest (supra).
(y) Coroners' Inquests, 28 Pa. C. C. R. 428 (1903).
(*) Fayette County v. Batton, 108 Pa. St. 591 (1885) ; Cochrane's
Case (supra) ; Fayette County Coroner's Return, 24 Pa. C. C. R. 498
(1900), and see McFadgen v. Chester Co., 10 Pa. C. C R. 124, s. c. 7
Mont 149 (1891).
THE CORONER'S INQUEST 189
so laid down and its application. The coroner is not com-
pelled nor is it his duty to inquire of every sudden death
nor every time he is called upon so to do (a). He is to decide
whether or not he should act. "The duty of a coroner to
hold an inquests rests on sound reason, on that reason
which is the life of the law. It is not a power to be ex-
ercised capriciously or arbitrarily against all reason. The
object of an inquest is to seek information and obtain and
secure evidence in case of death by violence or other un-
due means. If there be reasonable ground to suspect it
was so caused, it becomes the duty of the coroner to act.
If he has no ground for suspecting the death was not a
natural one it is a perversion of the whole spirit of the law
to compel the county to pay for such services" (&).
This is the ruling of the supreme court stated at length.
There are certain matters which must be considered before
we can thoroughly appreciate the application of this rule.
The coroner is himself the only judge of the necessity of
an inquest (c), not the neighbors and relatives, even though
the court disagree with him (d) and his finding is not sub-
Co) Fayette County Coroner's Return (supra), and see McFadgen
v. Chester County (supra).
(b) Per Mercur, J., Lancaster Co. v. Mishler, 100 Pa. St. 627,
quoted by Hemphill, J., in McFadgen v. Chester County (supra), and
cited, Coroners' Inquests, i Pa. C. C. R. 14; s. c. 3 Kulp, 451 ; 2 Del. Co.
446; 3 Lane. L. R. 70 (1885) ; Marvin Shaft Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R. 10
(1887) ; Pfout's Case, 7 Pa. C. C. R. 265 (1889) ; Bender's Case, 8 Pa.
C. C. R. 664 (1890) ; Lee's Case, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 474 (1891) ; Watson v.
Beaver County, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 495 ( 1891 ) ; Approval of Coroner's In-
quests, 7 Dist. 566; s. c. 20 Pa. C. C. R. 660; 2 Docket, 65 (1896) ; Jones'
Case, i Pa. C. C. R. 14 (1885) ; Cochrane's Case, 12 Dist. 477; s. c. 27
Pa. C. C. R. 282; 2 Pa. J. L. R. 27 (1903); Uhler v. Northampton
County, i Lehigh Valley Law Reporter, 213 (1886).
(c) Coroners' Inquests (supra) ; Winger v. McKean, n Dist. 555;
s. c. 26 Pa. C. C. R. 126; 8 Del. Co. 431 ; 18 Mont. 88 (1901) ; Fayette
County Coroner's Inquest, 30 Pa. C. C. R. 321 ; s. c. 35 P. L. J. 265 ;
9 Del. Co. 431 (1904) ; Fayette County Coroner's Return, 24 Pa. C.
C. R. 498 (1900); Metzger's Inquest, 8 Dist. 573 (1899), (But when
the justice holds inquest the decision is for the court, ibid), and see
Rambo v. Chester Co., i Chester Co. 414-416 (1878) ; Hopkins v. Ches-
ter County, i Chester Co. 481 (1878).
(d) Fayette County Coroner's Inquest, 30 Pa. C. C. R. 321 ; s. c.
35 P. L. J. 265; 9 Del. Co. 431 (1904) ; but when some decisions go so
far as to say in such a case his fees are to be refused, and one that
such a practice is to be encouraged, Fayette County Coroner's Return,
24 Pa. C. C. R. 498 (1900), and see King v. Justices of Kent, u East.
229 (1809), we see it is pernicious.
190 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
ject to judicial criticism or review (*) Although the cor-
oner is not a court of record (/) in holding his inquest he
acts in a judicial capacity (g) and his discretion must not
therefore be exercised capriciously (/&). The decision is a
judicial one, and must be based upon judicial reasons (i).
It would seem that the decision should be one of law not
of fact. The coroner has no authority to employ a physician
or call witnesses (&) to assist in this decision (/).
Sect. 81. The coroner is to make a judicial decision as
to whether or not an inquest is to be held. "Where there is
cause to suspect that the deceased was feloniously destroyed,
the duty of the coroner is plain (m), but where the death
was caused by violence or other undue means there is more
difficulty in determining when to hold an inquest" (w). All
cases of sudden death do not need investigation (0). There
are certain elements that make a coroner's inquest neces-
sary, but the absence of which is not ipso facto a reason why
the inquest should not be held.
i. If the death is unnatural an inquest should be had
(/>), but if it appears plainly that the death was brought on
(e) Weaver v. Northampton County, 2 Lehigh Valley, 408 (1887),
and see ante, Sect. 68.
(/) Commonwealth v. Higgins, 5 Kulp, 269 (1889).
(g) Lancaster County v. Mishler, 100 Pa. St. 624 (1882).
(h) Lancaster County v. Mishler (supra) ', Coroner's Inquest, 28
Pa. C. C. R. 428 (1903) ; Lee's Case (supra) ; Fayette County v. Bat-
ton, 108 Pa. St. 594 (1885) ; Coroners' Inquests, i Pa. C. C. R. 14; s. c.
3 Kulp, 451; 2 Del. Co. 446; 3 Lane. L. R. 70 (1885) ; McFadgen v.
Chester County (supra) ; Burns' Case (supra) ; Cochrane's Case
(supra) ; Winger v. McKean (supra) ; Miller v. Cambria, 29 Superior
Court, 166 (1905).
() Winger v. McKean (supra) ; but see Fayette County Coro-
ner's Return, 24 Pa. C. C. R. 498 (1900).
(k) Winger v. McKean (supra).
(1) But see Cochrane's Case, 12 Dist. 477; 27 Pa. C. C. R. 282;
2 Pa. J. L. R. 27 (1903).
(m) Pfout's Case, 7 Pa. C. C. R. 265 (1889) ; Metzger's Inquest,
8 Dist. 573 (1899); Approval of Coroners' Inquests, 7 Dist. 566; s. c.
20 Pa. C. C. R. 660; 2 Docket, 65 (1896).
(n) Lee's Case, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 474 (1891) ; Coroners' Inquests, 28
Pa. C. C. R. 428 (1903). See Jones Case, i Pa. C. C. R. 19 (1885).
(0) The King v. The Justices of Kent, n East, 229 (1809). Apple-
man's Case, 7 Jurist, 201 (1909).
(/) McFadgen v. Chester County, 10 Pa. C. C. R. 124; s. c. 7
Mont. Co. 149 (1891); Coroner's Inquest, i Pa. C. C. R. 14; s. c. 3
Kulp, 451; 2 Del. Co. 446; 3 Lane. L. R. 70 (1885) ; Jones Case, I Pa.
C. C R. 19 (1885); Winger v. McKean, 31 Pa. C. C. R. 664 (1905).
See Metzger's Inquest, 8 Dist. 573 (1899).
THE CORONER'S INQUEST 191
by natural causes there should be no inquest (q). The dis-
tinction here is a very fine one and one on which the courts
have been very apt to go wrong. It is a distinction which
it would have been better to abandon or never to have insti-
tuted in the law. Its interpretation depends largely on the
second element.
2. If the death was caused by violence it is submitted
there should be an inquest (r) even more than this, in cases
where violent death is suspected the coroner should inquire
(s~). The question therefore arise what is "violence"? The
supreme court has never defined it though they have illus-
trated its application (*), but it has been used without qual-
ification in almost every case on the subject. The Century
Dictionary defines "violence" (M.) as force, vehemence, in-
tensity, but adds a legal definition we need not here regard.
Bouvier defines it (v) as "The abuse of force. That force
which is employed against common right, against the laws
(q) Winger v. McKean, 31 Pa. C. C. R. 664 (1905) ; McFadgen v.
Chester County ( supra) ; Cochrane's Inquest, 12 Disk 477 ; s. c. 27 Pa.
C. C. R. 282; 2 Pa. J. L. R. 27 (1903) ; Miller v. Cambria County, 29
Superior Court, 166 (1905). It is doubtful in spite of this case whether
a death due to negligence should not be investigated, Fayette County
Coroner's Return, 24 Pa. C. C. R. 498 (1900); and see Metzger's In-
quest (supra).
(r) Commonwealth v. Harmon, 4 Pa. St. 269 (1846), affirming
6 P. L. J. 120; Pf out's Case, 7 Pa. C. C. R. 265 (1889) ; Northampton
County v. Innes, 26 Pa. St. 156 (1856), affirming 3 P. L. J. 644; Alle-
gheny County v. Shaw, 34 Pa. St. 301 (1859) > and see 7 P. L. t. 217;
14 Lane. Bar. 101 ; 30 P. L. J. 361; 39 L. I. 459; 12 W. N. C. 312;
Lancaster County v. Mishler, 100 Pa. St. 624; Coroner's Inquest, 28
Pa. C. C. R. 428 (1903) ; Fayette County v. Batton, 108 Pa. St. 591
(1885); Jones Case, i Pa. C. C. R. 19 (1885); Metzger's Inquest, 8
Dist. 573 (1899) ; Fayette County Coroner's Inquest, 30 Pa. C. C. R.
321 ; s. c. 35 P. L. J. 265 ; 9 Del. Co. 431 (1904) ; Coroner's Inquest, i Pa.
C. C. R. 14; s. c. 3 Kulp, 451 ; 2 Del. Co. 446; 3 Lane. L. R. 70 (1885) ;
but see Rambo v. Chester Co., I Chest. Co. 414-416 (1878) ; Hopkins v.
Chester Co., i Chest. Co. 481 (1878) ; McFadgen v. Chester Co., 10 Pa.
C. C. R. 124; 7 Mont. 149 (1891) ; Witmore's Case, 3 Dist. 699; 14 Pa.
C. C. R. 463 (1894) ; Lee's Case, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 470 (1891). It is not
necessary that the death should be violent and sudden, violent is enough.
Lancaster v. Dern, 2 Grant, 262 (1852) ; but sudden alone will not suf-
fice. McFadgen v. Chester County, 10 Pa. C. C. R. 124; 7 Mont. 149
(1891). Some cases say violence or other undue means. Fayette
County v. Batton, 108 Pa. St. 594 (1885) ; Lee's Case, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 474
(1891).
(s) Commonwealth v. Harman, 4 Pa. St. 269 (1846); Northamp-
ton Co. v. Innes (supra) ; Allegheny Co. v. Shaw (supra).
(t) Lancaster v. Dern, 2 Grant, 262 (1852).
() Vol. 8, p. 6761.
(v) Vol. 2, p. 1197.
192 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
and against public liberty. Violence is synonymous with
physical force and the two are used interchangeably in rela-
tion to assaults, by elementary writers on criminal law."
It is submitted this definition is too narrow. Words and
Phrases says (w) "violence according to law dictionaries is
synonymous with physical force." According to the Amer-
ican and English Encyclopedia of Law, it is a general term
and includes all sorts of force. This definition most nearly
corresponds with the connotation of the word to the ordi-
nary mind. Laymen, by violence, do not understand some-
thing criminal. Even lawyers say a man was thrown with
violence to the pavement, connoting mere negligence. More-
over the special acts show us the real meaning of the word
in the eye of the law of this commonwealth. The Luzerne
County Act (.r) specifically limits the word "violence" by
the word "unlawful" with the intent of limiting the coro-
ners' powers in just the way that Bouvier's definition of
"violence" would. If "violence" referred only to unlawful
acts, it would be unnecessary to say "unlawful violence."
The Westmoreland County act (y) uses the identical words.
In Philadelphia County we have two acts in pari passu giv-
ing the coroner a broader scope than those allowed by the
other acts above referred to. In these acts the word "vio-
lence" is used without qualification in a way that would be
senseless if the word refers to criminal violence only (#).
It has been said the supreme court have given us no defini-
tion of violence; they have, however, illustrated the mean-
ing of the word. In Lancaster v. Dern (a) a woman was
run into by a sleigh, one of the shafts of which penetrated
her brain causing her death three days afterwards. These
circumstances the supreme court said constituted violence
within the meaning of the common law.
The county courts have continually overlooked the illus-
(w) Vol. 8, p. 7327.
(x) 30 March, 1866, Sect. I, P. L. 391 ; quaere, whether all these
acts are not superseded by the Act of 16 April, 1907, P. L. 92?
(y) 18 March, 1869, Sect, i, P. L. 404.
(z) See Acts of 16 April, 1845, Sect. 9, P. L. 539, and 24 March,
1867, Sects, i, 2 and 3, P. L. 532.
(a) 2 Grant, 262 (1852).
THE CORONER'S INQUEST 193
tration given in Lancaster v. Dern and have consistently at-
tempted to limit the meaning of the word "violence." In
Jones Case (b) the court took the whole phrase "violence
and undue means" (c), coupled them together and declared
they refer to some unlawful act. In point of time the next
case was Burn's Case (d), which went beyond any previous
decision, saying of violence, "it has reference to human
agency and includes the idea of responsibility for crime."
This was immediately followed in Pfout's Case (e), where
the question of violence was discussed and not one word
said about a limitation upon the meaning of the word. Lee's
Case (/) is decided in exactly the same words as Burn's
Case. In Witmore's Case (g), the rule at first laid down in
Jones Case was adopted and this has been followed (h)
by the superior court ('). By far the best reasoned and
soundest opinion is that in Uhler v. Northampton County
(). Reeder, J., delivered the opinion of the court, which
is worthy of quotation at length.
"The attorney for the defendant, however, contends
that the word Violence' as used by the supreme court in
that case is not to be understood in its broad and literal
sense, but that it has in that connection a restricted mean-
ing, viz., violence at the hands of another. This view would
be giving both clauses of the sentence the same interpreta-
tion, for when the death has been caused by violence at the
hands of another the coroner 'would have just reason to sus-
pect that the deceased had been feloniously destroyed.' So
that when the supreme court say, 'or when death has been
caused by violence,' they mean something different from that
which has just been previously said by them. Therefore the
interpretation contended for by the attorney for the defend-
(b) i Pa. C C. R. 19 (1885).
(c) Taken from Lancaster County v. Mishler.
(d) 5 Pa. C. C. R. 548 (1888); cited with approval in Coroner's
Inquest, 28 Pa. C. C. R. 428 (1903).
() 4 Lane. L. R. 302 (1887).
1% OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
occasion for holding the inquest should appear in the return
and the simple statement "there was strong suspicion of
violence such as to make an inquest necessary" is not enough.
These are the words of the act and the decision must be
interpreted to mean that the certification required by the act
must be one of the facts not of conclusions. But even
though the act of 1866, is applicable to this case it is difficult
to see how the court can reconcile such a decision to the
general rule of law that the coroner acts in a judicial capacity
and it is in his discretion to determine the necessity for the
holding of an inquest. Of course under this act Stoecker's
Inquest (). Furst
P.J. of Centre County has carried the doctine there express-
ed to its logical conclusion. He says (q). "If the facts
are known the inquest would simply declare what is previ-
ously known" and he trimuphantly adds if officers would
observe the rules he has laid down there would be fewer
inquests. Surely man is growing confident of man's upright-
ness. What are known facts? Rumor is more rapid than
the express train. Known facts from a legal standpoint
can only be facts judicially declared. But suppose we con-
ceive the idea of a man killed by a railroad train before a
(m) See Chapter on Mines.
(n) 5 Pa. C. C. R. 548 (1888) ; and see Coroners' Inquests, 28 Pa.
C. C. R. 428 (1903) ; Lee's Case, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 474 (1891) ; Pfout's
Case, 7 Pa. C. C. R. 265 (1889); Witmore's Case (supra); Metzger's
Case (supra).
(0) The court entirely overlooks the Act of 3 Henry VII, which
specifically provides suicide shall be investigated.
(p) See Witmore's Case, 3 Dist. 699; s. c. 14 Pa. C. C. R. 463
(1804).
(q) In Pfout's Case, 7 Pa. C. C. R. 265 (1889).
THE CORONER'S INQUEST 201
multitude of people. The facts are known. Surely this is
merest accident. But man must be confident of man's in-
tegrity, if it is not to be judicially determined that it was
merest accident. It might have been caused by malice pre-
pense. The rule sought to be laid down here carried to its
logical conclusion is this. If the facts are known there need
be no inquest : only where the death is surrounded by mystery
should the inquest be held. The next step is a complete re-
ductio ad absurdum. If the cause of death is known, i. e., if
there are any witnesses who can prove what the real cause
of death was (for id cerium est) there should be no inquest.
But of the cause of death is unknown, i. e., if there are no
witneses, an inquest could by no possibility establish any-
thing. If there are no marks of violence on the body no
inquest should be held. Of course the case of a poisoning
occurs to the mind proving this statement completely falla-
cious. Perhaps the word "known" is at the bottom of the
whole trouble. What is the real meaning of the courts when
they say if the facts are "known"? The best answer has
already been given, in law no facts are "known" until they
are judicially determined.
The real secret of the trouble is unwittingly summed
up in Metzgers Inquest (r) thus: "The practice has become
quite too common in this county of holding inquests every
time a death occurs not entirely usual in its circumstances.
When the cause of death is not doubtful the coroner ought
not to put the county to the expense of an inquest."
Sect. 85. Were we for a moment to lay aside more
conservative thoughts and adopt the rule asserted as we have
seen in the last section with so much confidence it necessa-
rily follows that suicide should never be investigated and
such has been said to be the law (s). It is respectfully
submited that it is to stretch the rule too far to even say
(r) 8 Dist. 573 (1899).
(j) Witmore's Case, 3 Dist. 699; s. c. 14 Pa. C. C. R. 463 (1894) ',
Metzger's Inquest, 8 Dist. 573 (1899); Cochrane's Case, 12 Dist. 477;
s. c. 27 Pa. C. C. R. 282; 2 Pa. ]. L. R. 27 (1903) ; citing Winger's
v. McKean, II Dist. 555 (1901) ; Burns' Case, 5 Pa. C C. R. 543 (1888) ;
Coroners' Inquests, 28 Pa. C. C. R. 428 (1903) ; Lee's Case, 9 Pa. C. C.
R. 474 (1891) ; Pf out's Case, 7 Pa. C. C. R. 265 (1889). We needs must
ask is the Act of 3 Henry VII still in force?
202 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
"where it is quite evident that the death has been caused
by disease, or other natural cause, suicide, pure accident or
negligence of the deceased no^inquest is needed and if held
no fees should be allowed therefor" (). We cannot go so
far as to say, "The case of suicide does not require investi-
gation", even though we qualify the statement by saying
"if the facts are known which clearly shown the case to be
suicide it is improper to summon an inquest" (w).
While it has been said that suicide alone is insuffici-
ent ground for holding an inquest (v) and that where the
facts surrounding a suicide are not suspicious no inquest
should be held (w). It seems less incorrect to say that
suicide may or may not be a proper subject for investiga-
tion (*) ; and it is carrying the rule too far to say that if
a man is subject to melancholy his apparent suicide should
not be investigated (y). It opens the door for secret crimes
to go uninvestigated. It is not to the purpose to say the
grand jury may inquire. So it may, but if the coroners in-
quest is to be good for anything, the coroner should be very
suspicious of fair appearances.
But after all this discussion form decided cases we come
to the specific enactment of parliament held by the supreme
court to be still valid in Pennsylvania, the act third
Henry VII, which expressly provides that all cases of sui-
cide shall be investigated. We may look at the act and then
at the cases and draw what conclusions we please. We may
(0 Watson v. Beaver Co., 9 Pa. C. C. R. 495; s. c. 27 W. N. C. 469
(1891) ; and see n Phila. 387; 7 Leg. Gaz. 125; 22 P. L. J. 151 ; 32 Leg.
Int. 142. Approval of Coroners' Inquests, 7 Dist. 566; s. c. 20 Pa.
C. C. R. 660; 2 Docket, 65 (1896).
(u) Metzger's Case (supra) ; Witmore's Case (supra) ; Marvin
Shaft Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R. 12 (1887) ; Lee's Case (supra) ; Watson
v. Beaver County (supra) ; Pfout's Case, 7 Pa. C. C. R. 265 (1889) ;
Grubb's Case, 3 Pa. J. L. R. 79 (1904).
(v) Cochrane's Case, 12 Dist. 477; s. c. 27 Pa. C. C. R. 282; 2 Pa.
J. L. R. 27 (1903) ; and see Witmore's Case, 3 Dist. 699; s. c. 14 Pa.
C. C. R. 463 (1894) ; and cases there cited. But Uhler v. Northampton
County, I Lehigh Valley, 213 (1886), holds suicide alone is a sufficient
ground for an inquest, and the Act of 3 Henry VII specifically pro-
vides it shall be investigated.
(w) Cochrane's Case (supra) ; Pfout's Case (supra).
(x) Pfout's Case (supra). Approval of Coroners' Inquests, 7 Dist.
566; s. c. 20 Pa. C. C. R. 660; 2 Docket, 65 (1896).
(y) Ai was said in Grubb's Case (supra), and Pfout's Case
(supra).
THE CORONER'S INQUEST 203
ask any or all of the following questions. Have our county
courts in the face of the supreme court the right to over-
rule and make obsolete statutes as old as the commonwealth
itself? Shall we be guided by supreme court cases in 1841
or county court cases in 1911? Has the act of third Henry
VII in force in Pennsylvania from 1688 to 1880, suddenly
become obsolete of its own great age? And what shall we
think of the county court which deliberately overlooks the
statutes of the Commonwealth? or shall we say out of char-
ity they did not know there was such an act? What weight
shall we give to the other utterances of courts so heedless ?
Leaving these thoughts as unprofitable to our inquiry
we lay it down with exceeding confidence in the face of the
overwhelming weight of county court authority to the con-
trary that suicide should always be investigated except in
such places where special acts prohibit it and we rely for
authority solely on the statute law of the Commonwealth,
on the act of third Henry VII which was in force in Penn-
sylvania in 1808 and has never been repealed (z).
Sect. 86. From the rule that if the facts are known
no inquest should be held the county courts have drawn
another conclusion which must be noticed. They say an
accidental death is not one to be inquired of by inquest (a).
It may be true that where one is killed in the presence of
witnesses by stepping in front of a moving train or while
trying to board one no inquest should be held (&.) Every
death on the railroad tracks certainly does not call for an
inquest. But the rule has been laid down more broadly;
that an accidental death should not be investigated. It has
been said that no inquest should have been held where one
died in convulsions due to congestions of the lungs (c)
(*) See Uhler v. Northampton County, I Lehigh Valley, 213
(1886), and the report of the judges, 3 Binney, 604 (1808). The Act of
16 April, 1907, P. L. 92, being in affirmance of the common law, does
not repeal this part of the Act of 3 Henry VII.
(a) Marvin Shaft Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R. 10 (1887) ; Walker v. Mc-
Kean, 31 Pa. C. C. R. 664 (1905); citing Coroners' Inquests, i Pa. C.
C R. 14; s. c. 3 Kulp, 451; 2 Del. Co. 446; 3 Lane. L. R. 70 (1885) ;
contra, Uhler v. Northampton County, I Lehigh Valley, 213 (1886).
(ft) Arnold's Case, 4 Pa. J. L. R. 49 (1905) ; contra, Lee's Case,
9 Pa. C. C R. 474 (1891).
(c) Smith's Case, 4 Lane. L. R. 302 (1887).
204 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
where one was accidentally killed by an engine or a car or
was found in his bed with no marks of violence, where one
might be said to have died by visitation of God, was acciden-
tally run over by cars, or by a coal train while sitting or lying
on the track (d) found dead in his bed of heart disease (e)
found lying on the railroad track with a broken spine and
nothing to show how it happened (/) or where the death
was caused by a stroke of lightning (), washed away by a well known
flood, committed suicide (had had melancholy), bathing
and accidentally drowned, drank himself to death or where
one was helping to load a boiler and it slipped and crushed
him (). In Lee's Case it was said that wherever a man
was found on the railroad track with marks of having been
run over upon him, it was proper to hold an inquest, but in
that case fees were refused the coroner upon that very
state of facts. In Arnold's Case (TV) we meet with the de-
lightful inconsistency that where it is a question merely of
who was negligent the parties should not tax the county with
an inquest, but should investigate at their own expense, but
in the same opinion it is said that where the negligence is
such that some public good would be acquired by the in-
quest it should be held, implying that there could be a case
of negligence causing death of no interest to the common
weal.
This ruling makes the court the judge of the necessity
of holding inquests. It is a well known rule that the coroner
is the only judge of that necessity (x). Some cases add that
(s) 2 Grant, 262 (1852) ; and so an explosion was held ground
for an inquest, Allegheny v. McClung, 53 Pa. St. 482 (1866).
(I) I Lehigh Valley Law Reporter, 213 (1886).
() Walker v. McKean County, 31 Pa. C. C. R. 664 (1905).
(v) Lee's Case, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 474 (1891) ; Walker v. McKean
County (supra).
(w) 4 Pa. J. L. R, 49 (1005).
(*) Weaver v. Northampton Co., 2 Lehigh Valley, 408 (1887).
206 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
the relatives and friends of the decased are not the judges
(y) but even as to that there is a conflict of opinion. It was
said in Lee's Case (2) "should any person, company or cor-
poration desire that an inquest should be held where the law
does not require the coroner to hold one, it should be done/'
but the person desiring the inquest should pay the costs.
The same rule is intimated in Arnold's Case (a) where it is
said the parties interested should inquire at their own ex-
pense, but does not indicate whether or not the public
coroner to hold one. Although this is the most recent
Coroners Inquests (&) does not go quite so far, but is per-
haps more reasonable. "I do not think that justices of the
peace have the same right to exercise the coroner's judicial
functions as the coroner himself has," and so if the relatives
and neighbors demand and will pay for an inquest he must
hold one. As recently as Cochrane's Case (c) it has been
determined that where an employer desires to have it defi-
nitely determined that no negligence of his contributed to
the death he can upon paying the costs of inquest require the
coroner to hold one. Although this is the most recent
effusion on the subject we cannot think it right. It has been
repeatedly held that a request of any individual is insufficient
ground for holding an inquest (d} and we cannot but agree
with Wickham, P. J., in Watson v. Beaver County ().
When is it necessary?
"Where a woman attended by a physician suddenly
died and the coroner held an inquest super visum corporis
and employed a physician to make a post mortem which
proved the woman died by natural causes. Held, neverthe-
less the county is liable to pay him reasonable compensa-
tion" (q).
Yet in the face of such decisions, Church, P. J., says
(r). It is a dangerous power to give the coroner or justice
of the peace, the right to hire a physician. It should be ex-
ercised very cautiously.
Sect. 90. We have already seen (s) that there is a
considerable doubt as to whether the coroner's inquest is to
be considered a matter of public inquiry or merely a secret
investigation, part of the criminal procedure of the state to
which the public as such have no right to be admitted. The
weight of the lower court cases seems to be cast on the side
of privacy of the inquest. There are no decisions directly
on the point. The conclusion we are forced to draw from
the county court decisions is that the purpose of the inquest
is only to investigate cases where crimes have been com-
mitted. The cases in the supreme court we have already
seen do not support this view. When therefore we are called
upon to analyse the effect of the decisions taken as a whole
upon a question which none of them have directly touched,
it is difficult to say which view would ultimately be taken
by the supreme court were this point brought before it. The
real basis of the privacy or publicity of the inquest depends
(0) Per Lewis C. J. Northampton County v. Inncs, 26 Pa. St., 156
(1856), s. c. 3 P. L- J- 644-
(p) Hopkins v. Chester County (supra), Pickett v. Erie County
(supra), but not two physicians. Coroners Inquests, r Pa. C. C. R., 14.
s. c. 3 Kulp, 351 ; 2 Del. Co., 446; 3 Lane. L. R., 70 (1885) ; Metzger's
Inquest, 8 Dist., 573 (1899).
(q) Northampton County v. Innes, 26 Pa. St., 156 (1856). s. c.
3 P. L. J., 644-
(r) Coroners Inquests (supra).
(j) Ante, Sect. 54,
212 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
in part on the object of the inquest. On the whole we have
seen the object in Pennsylvania is not merely the investiga-
tion of given offenses, but the determination of the cause of
death for the purpose of ascertaining whether or no any
crime has been committed. From this it would seem that the
commonwealth has a vital interest in the inquest of the
coroner. If this premise is correct it follows that the in-
dividuals who make up the commonwealth should have
right of access to the inquest. There is another reason.
Certain individuals have interests dependent on the result
of the inquest. These persons it would seem ought not to
be excluded from the coroners inquest. As we shall see it
is the duty of the coroner to hear the testimony of all who
can give information concerning the matters under investi-
gation, and this seems to be a strong argument in favor of
the publicity of the inquisition. It is his duty to receive
evidence both for and against the commonwealth and it
might well be asked how can the suspected party or parties
be expected to produce sufficient or even intelligent evidence
against the commonwealth unless they have a right to be
present. Moreover depositions taken before the coroner
are still in certain cases evidence (t) and how can this be
unless the party against whom the depositions are to be
used has a right to be present and cross examine. It may
also be said that the inquest may still be quashed for ir-
regularity and unless the parties have a right to be present
there can be no check upon irregularities. On the other
hand there are many equally weighty considerations. "It
is obvious although the inquiry of the coroner is preliminary
only, that it may and frequently does lead to an accusation.
Such an inquiry ought for the purposes of justice in some
cases to be conducted in secrecy. It may be requisite that
the party suspected should not at so early a stage be in-
formed of the suspicion that may be entertained against him,
and the evidence upon which that suspicion is founded lest
he should elude justice by flight, by tampering with the wit-
nesses or by any other means" (/). There may be cases in
which privacy is requisite for the sake of decency or because
(f) See Peake on Evidence, 64; 2 Phil. & Arn. on Evidence, no.
(tt) Jervis on Coroners, p. 240.
THE CORONER'S INQUEST 213
it is due the family of the deceased. So it may be argued
that where the exclusion of the public at large is unnecessary
that of some one person is requisite to the fulfillment of the
ends of justice. To all this argument the answer is plain
the coroner's court like every other court of this common-
wealth is open and public, but the coroner is the judge
of the court and may use his discretion to exclude whomso-
ever he sees fit to exclude that the ends of justice may be ac-
complished. Bearing in mind the purpose of the inquest is
not to accuse, we may fairly say the coroner has power to
admit to or exclude from his inquest according to his own
discretion. For fair bona fide exercise of this discretion, no
action will lie against the coroner (w). But the coroner
should exercise judicial discretion in admissions and ex-
clusions. Indeed unless he had such power it would be im-
possible that the proceedings should be conducted with due
order and solemnity (v) even though it is a misdemeanor
to interfere with the coroner in the exercise of his office. It
would therefore seem that the coroner has the right to
exclude not only an individual but the public generally from
his investigation.
Taken from the other side we have the question whether
or not the coroner has the right to have the accused brought
before him at his inquest. Although the coroner holds a
court in Pennsylvania, he is not a court of record (/).
It would seem therefore that as the decision has been in
England, where the coroner is a court of record, that he
cannot force the criminal to be brought before him, a
fortiori he has no such power in Pennsylvania.
Sect. 91. It has already been observed that the body
is a large part of the evidence in the coroner's inquest. The
marks or wounds upon the body should be carefully observed
by the jury (#) and their length, breadth and depth care-
fully noted (y). Fleta tells us the body should be seen
() 6 B. & C, 611, nor for any other judicial act by him done.
(v) Ante, Sect. 54.
(a/) Edwards v. Gimbel, 202 Pa. St., 30 ( 1902) ; Commonwealth v.
Higgins, 5 Kulp, 269 (1889).
(*) Britton, c. I, Sect. 7.
(y) 4 Edward I.
214 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
naked that all these marks may be observed (2). The jury
must be sworn before the view is had (a) and the coroner
and jury must view the body together. If the coroner views
it at one time, the jury at another, the whole inquest is
void (fc).
It is the duty of the coroner to inquire impartially and
fairly without prejudice or favor to any one or any view
of the case. It is his duty to hear all the evidence that may
be offered him (c). He is inquiring of facts and to those
facts he is to be utterly impartial. He should be very care-
ful not to instruct the jury upon the facts, but only upon
the law for the jury are the judges of the facts not he. There
is no requirement that the evidence shall be taken down, but
the coroner must take down the "effect of the evidence."
We may agree with East (d) that this does not mean the
impression the evidence makes on his mind, but the meaning
of the witnesses, as a matter of practice the coroner is al-
ways attended by a stenographer who takes down the evi-
dence verbatim.
Sect. 92. "It has been doubted whether the parties in-
terested in the inquiry are entitled to the benefit of counsel
before the coroner's inquest (a). In one case of felo de se
the court of king's bench quashed the inquisition because the
coroner refused to admit counsel and witnesses on behalf of
the administrator. There is however no decision applicable
to other inquiries before the coroner and the case alluded to
proceeded upon the supposition that inquisitions of felo de se
were not traversable whereas it may be supported more
properly upon another ground without reference to the ad-
missibility of counsel, viz., the rejection of evidence. It
was admitted in the argument of the case of Cox v. Cole-
ridge that a party has a right to attend by counsel before the
coroner's inquest, the point was not however noticed in the
(s) Fleta Lib., i cap. 25, Sect. 9.
(a) Jervis on the Law of Coroners, 256.
(b) Burnett v. Lackawanna County, 9 Pa. C. C. R., 95, s. c. i
Lack. Jur. 410 (1890).
(c) King v. Scorey, I Leach, 43 (1749).
(d) i Pleas of the Crown, 384.
(e) This and the following paragraphs are quoted from Jervis on
the Law of Coroners, p. 267.
THE CORONER'S INQUEST 215
judgment of the court, but Mr. Justice Bayley observed in-
cidentally that the right depended upon the question whether
or no the inquest were traversable. But with great defer-
ence to so high an authority it would seem that the right can
in no case depend upon this criterion. The nature of the
finding cannot be ascertained until all the witnesses are ex-
amined and the verdict returned at which period it would be
fruitless to allow or disallow the attendance of counsel.
"If this be correct the question of abstract right must
be considered without reference to direct authority and it
would seem on principle to be at most but doubtful. There
is nothing in the position of counsel to except them from the
power of exclusion vested in the coroner and if they are
allowed there is no reason why any other advocate skilled
in the law should not be permitted to be present at the
coroner's proceedings. If any advocate has the right to be
present a fortiori the party suspected (for there can be no
accusation until the inquiry is terminated) may be present
also and undoubtedly the coroner may if he thinks fit ex-
clude even the person suspected. If the party suspected or
interested has a right to the assistance of counsel it is im-
possible to say that those in the opposite interest have not
the equal right to have the presence and assistance of
some legal adviser on their behalf, and if one may attend,
why not several, If an advocate has a right to be present
he may obtain such information as may tend to frustrate
the administration of justice by knowing who the persons
are who are likely to be accused and the evidence by which
the accusation may be supported. The profession at the
present day is too liberal, honorable and intelligent to fur-
nish ground for objection on this score but the bare possi-
bility is sufficient to determine the question of abstract right.
It seems that the accused should have the right to be present
with his counsel ordinarily.
"It by no means follows as a consequence that their ad-
mission on some occasions would confer a right to be present
at all times.
"If it be not left to the fair discretion of the coroner
whether he will or will not admit counsel that privacy which
is due, not only to the ends of justice, where the inquiry
216 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
may terminate in accusation but also in many cases to the
feelings of the family of the deceased, cannot be maintained.
This exclusion may in some cases operate as a temporary
grievance, but it is obviously a greater that the party sus-
pected should be excluded; yet, that may be done if the
coroner think proper, and it is better that there should be
some hardship suffered in the individual case than that the
public should sustain a great detriment.
"On the other hand it is obvious that there are many
cases in which it may be expedient for the coroner to admit
the presence of persons learned in the law. Wherever ques-
tions of doubt or difficulty may present themselves in the
course of the inquiry it is fitting that both the court and jury
should have the benefit of the attendance of counsel although
coroners are in all cases presumed to be quaified to discharge
their duties should such cases occur. ******** j n g ne t ne
power of exclusion even of the public generally ought to be
regulated by a due regard to the circumstances of each par-
ticular case and should in no instance be arbitrarily or im-
properly enforced."
Sect. 92a. We may suppose that the court of the coro-
ner will be called in all manner of places. In Philadelphia
County the coroner has a special court room, but even that
is not always used. The court should be so arranged that
the coroner has a good view of all that takes place and is
able to hear all that is said. He should sit so that no one
can pass behind him. Next the coroner the jury should
be considered and should be seated so that they may both
see and hear if possible with equal facility as the coroner
himself. The foreman should sit nearest the coroner. In
the absence of a witness box a chair should be provided op-
posite the jury and in front of the coroner. If there is a
clerk to take the evidence he should sit between the coroner
and the witness facing the latter. Seats should also be pro-
vided for counsel and medical witnesses. If a long table
can be procured let the coroner sit at the head, the jury
in a row on the right side, the clerk on the left facing the
witness whose chair should be below that of the clerk and
the lower end of the table should be reserved for counsel
and the physicians. The public may be seated away from
THE CORONER'S INQUEST 217
the court and jury. Two separate tables should be pro-
vided one for the press, the other for the coroner's officers
and police.
The clerk or one of the officers should open court in a
clear audible voice as follows:
"The coroner's court is now opened. Jurymen will take
their places in the jury box (these words may be omitted
where there is no box) as their names are called."
The list of jurors should then be called and they should
answer to their names. As we have seen it is wisest for the
coroner to admit challenges to the jurors if any are offered.
When the panel is completed, the coroner may summon any
person present to complete it (e), the jury should be sworn.
The oath usually administered is as follows:
"You and each of you do solemnly swear that you
will true inquiry make into the manner and cause of death
of John Doe (and others) and a true and just verdict render
according to the evidence submitted. So help you
God." (/)
In some cases of course the jury will be sworn and
taken to view the body before being brought into court at
all. In such case the court proceeds with business as soon
as opened. Some coroners address the jury before permit-
ting them to hear evidence. There is no necessity for this
and it is a custom that cannot be too strongly discouraged.
The view of the body should be had before any wit-
nesses are heard. It is essential in order to prove the fact
of death (being the best evidence) and also in many in-
stances because in the absence of medical testimony it is
an important factor in determining the cause of death. The
marks of violence should be carefully shown to the jury,
but the body need not be unnecessarily or indecently ex-
posed, Fleta to the contrary notwithstanding. The jury
should all view at the same time and the coroner should
view with them.
Witnesses who are to identify the body should not be
(e~) Within certain bounds as we have seen.
(/) Of course it is understood that those who have conscientious
scruples against oaths may affirm.
218 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
allowed to see it before the jury do. They may be sworn
and examined, however, in the presence of the body.
The coroner may give the burial certificate as soon as the
view is completed, but if a post mortem examination is to
be made the coroner should ascertain from the physicians
what further evidence is needed and the burial should be
postponed until such examination as the doctors think re-
quisite has been made. In all cases it is wisest not to give
the order until the jury have returned their verdict. Per-
mission to cremate should only be given after the fullest
consideration that no further examination can be neces-
sary.
When the jury return to the court the officer should
call over their names and so in case of an adjourned meet-
ing. But what is to happen if one of the jurors should be
absent does not appear. Of course the coroner can adjourn
the meeting and can issue a warrant to have the delinquent
brought in. But there must be at least six jurors and there
cannot be more so that it would seem that if one juror dis-
appeared and could not be found, the coroner must dis-
miss the jury and take another inquest. It is very well
to say that in practice it never happens, but should it happen
it would be most embarrassing.
These preliminary stages having been completed the
coroner calls the witnesses who are sworn as follows :
"You do solemnly swear that the evidence you are
about to give in the matter now pending before the coroner
will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
So help you God."
The coroner may call whomsoever he pleases and in
what order soever: But he cannot refuse to call any wit-
ness offered to him or who presents himself and desires to
give his information, nor has he a right to refuse to ex-
amine any witness on the ground that his evidence might
tend to criminate himself. The proper course is for the
coroner to tell the witness that he is not bound to incriminate
himself and then let him make what statement he pleases.
One limit the coroner may put on witnesses, and that is this :
if the witness will add nothing new but merely corroborate
what has been said by previous witnesses the coroner is not
THE CORONER'S INQUEST 219
bound to hear him. But it is wisest to hear all the wit-
nesses.
If witnesses are absent we have seen the coroner may
compel their attendance, but there is considerable doubt as
to whether or no the coroner's warrant may be executed
out of his jurisdiction. The coroner's inquiry being prelimi-
nary he may hear testimony not upon oath but the jury
should be most carefully instructed that such testimony is
not evidence and that they must not base their verdict upon
it. The safest way is to hear no such statements.
The coroner himself should first examine the wit-
nesses and this from his preliminary examination of the
case he is prepared to do intelligently. When he is through
with his examination he should ask, "Is there any other ques-
tion you would like me to put to this witness?" But if
counsel attend the coroner as a rule permits them to ex-
amine or cross examine the witness when he has finished
his own examination. The coroner is bound by no rules of
evidence for his examination is but a preliminary one. It
is moreover his duty to collect as far as possible all in-
formation concerning the case. Besides the coroner has no
right to exclude proper evidence, his inquisition may be
quashed on that ground, so that it is wisest if there is any
doubt on the subject to admit the evidence. The immaterial
and irrelevant statements thus brought out before the
coroner may be very helpful to the police or the district
attorney in investigating the case and producing the neces-
sary evidence at the trial. Hearsay, res inter alios acta, ad-
missions and confessions voluntary or involuntary may be
admitted. But the coroner may well bear in mind that the
best eveidence is the only proper evidence and should get
that first before admitting testimony which would be in-
admissible in a court of law. He may also do well to bear in
mind, I, That every person is presumed to be sane until the
contrary is proven; 2, That every person is presumed to be
innocent of crime until the contrary is proven. 3, Every
sane person who has reached years of discretion (fourteen)
is conclusively presumed to intend the natural and proba-
ble consequences of his acts. 4, That homicide is presumed
to be murder until the contrary is proven.
220 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
The evidence having been completed it becomes the
coroner's duty to sum up. He should be careful not to in-
struct the jury upon the facts though he has a right to re-
fresh their memories, but he should instruct them upon the
law if any enters into the case. The jury may then retire
to deliberate. What happens if they disagree is discussed
elsewhere, in practice they never do. When they return
the usual query is put to them and they announce their
verdict.
When the jury has returned a verdict or when it be-
comes necessary to adjourn the inquest until a later day this
may be informally done by the clerk or an officer upon in-
struction from the coroner announcing the adjournment.
In Philadelphia the following form is used:
"The coroner's court now stands adjourned until to-
morrow morning at ten o'clock (or as the case may be.)"
A question of interest has arisen lately in Philadelphia
County as to the duty of the coroner to commit in homicide
cases. Judge Sulzberger has laid it down generally (#)
that the coroner should always commit persons found re-
sponsible for death. It is respectfully submitted that such
is not the law. The coroner may have power to commit
where the verdict is murder or manslaughter, though this
has been doubted (&), beyond this he certainly has no power.
(g) Coroner's Duties, 20 Dist. 502 (1911).
(A) Walker v. McKean, 31 Pa. C. C. R. 664, 15 Dist. 577 (1005).
CHAPTER VIII.
EFFECT AND RETURN OF THE INQUEST.
Sect. 93. When the evidence is closed the coroner
draws up the inquisition and he and the jurors set their
hinds and seals to it (a). It must be signed by the jurors
in person by their full names, initials will not do (&). This
completes the inquest and no second inquest can be held until
the first is disposed of. We have no instance on record
in Pennsylvania where a melius inquirendum was granted
but the principles governing the matter are still in force.
There being no Pennsylvania statutes to govern, many
loose practices have grown up about the manner of mak-
ing the return. The necessity for a return to court is
generally recognized and seems to be founded upon the
statute of third Henry VII (c), which provides that the
coroner must return and certify his inquisition into the next
goal delivery or into the court of king's bench under pain
of five pounds. We should expect to see the inquisitions in
Pennsylvania returned before our court of oyer and terminer
and general goal delivery or before the supreme court, but
such is not the practice. In some countries the return is
made to the court of quarter sessions (d) in others into the
common pleas (e) while in Centre (/) and Lancaster
Counties (g) the return is made before the county com-
missioners.
' (a) 22 Assize, 94.
(fr) Crosby's Case, 19 Pitts. L. J., 192; 3 Pitts., 425 (1872).
(c) 2 Statutes of the Realm (English) 510 (1487)-
(d) Delaware, see Coroner's Inquests, i Pa. C. C. R., 667, s. c.
2 Del. Co., 446, 475 (1885) ; Fayette, see Fayette County Coroners Re-
turn, 24 Pa. C. C. R., 498 ( 1900) ; Lackawanna, Marvin Shaft Inquest,
3 Pa. C. C. R.. 10 (1887), and Perry, but in Perry the justices of the
peace return their inquisitions into the common pleas, Grubb's Case, 3
Pa. J. L. R., 79 (1904).
(e) Clearfield. Jones's Case, I Pa. C. C. R., 19 (1885), and see
Grubb's Case, 3 Pa. J. L. R., 78 (1904), as to Perry the justices of the
peace return their inquisitions into the common pleas where they are
laid over pending exceptions.
(/) Burn's Case, 5 Pa. C. C. R., 548 (1888).
(g) It was so argued by J. W. Johnson in Lancaster County v.
Mishler, 100 Pa. St. 624 (1882).
(221;
222 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
The coroner's inquest in Pennsylvania seems to have
ceased to have the effect of an indictment, therefore the
strictness requisite in drawing up the return which pertained
in England has gradually been slackened until now no form
is required though certain essentials are still necessary (h).
It seems it is not necessary for the coroner's return to show
on its face "when, where and how the coroner was called"
nor set forth that there were suspicions of foul play (i). But
wherever the special act of 1866 is in force, it is requisite
that the occasion for the interposition of the coroner should
appear and the simple statement that "there was strong
suspicion of violence such as to make an inquest necessary"
is not enough (). It can be presumed that the coroner
acts in good faith it is reasonable that such statement should
be held sufficient, but in Smith's Case (/), it was decided that
the court cannot presume any thing to justify the coroner in
holding the inquest, that the return does not show on its face.
So under the act of 1897 (m) where the coroner makes a
return that no inquest is necessary he should state that he
was called upon to act and by whom and should add a brief
of the statements made to him (n). In this connection it
must be remembered that the sole purpose of this act is
to give additional fees and that under it the return may
well be different (0) from the return where an inquest is
taken (/>).
But as we have observed there are certain essentials in
substance that cannot well be omitted, the nature of the
death should be most specifically set out (q}. The return
(h) Marvin Shaft Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R., 10 (1883); Coroners
Inquest, i Pa. C. C. R., 14 (1885) ; Crosby's Inquest, 19 P. L. J., 192;
3 Pitts., 425 (1872) ; Fayette County Coroners Inquest, 30 Pa. C. C. R.,
321; 35 P. L. J., 265; Del. 431 (1904), for a form, see ex parte Schulz,
6 Wharton, 269 (1841).
(t) Fayette County Coroners Return, 24 Pa. C. C. R., 498 (1900).
(fc) Smith's Case, 4 Lane. L. R. 302 (1867).
(/) Supra.
(m) P. L. 8.
(n) Fayette County Coroners Return (supra).
(0) Besides it must comply with the terms of the act.
(/>) So a deputy coroner is entitled to no fee where no inquest
is taken, re Missiner, 20 Mont. 200, s. c. 3 Pa. J. L. R., 88; 18 York,
115 (1904).
(q~) King v. Solway, 3 Modern, 100 pi., 61 (1686) ; Anonymous,
12, Modern, 112 (1697).
EFFECT AND RETURN OF THE INQUEST 223
should state the inquisition was upon view (r) of a dead
body and where the death occurred. If a crime has been com-
mitted it should be stated by whom (s) or that it was com-
mitted by a person unknown (f). The return should specify
the names of the jurors (u) but it is highly improbable that
it would be quashed if it did not. It must state that the
jurors were sworn (v). It should contain in cases where
murder or manslaughter is found (w;) the effect of the evi-
dence under the statute of i and 2 Phillip and Mary Chapter
13, which is still in force in Pennsylvania (>).
There is no other statute in force in Pennsylvania re-
quiring the coroner to reduce to writing the evidence of wit-
nesses testifying before him (y). In these days of short-
hand and typewriting it has come to be the practice to re-
port the whole testimony and attach a full transcript thereof
to the inquisition. All that is required is "to put in writing
the effect of the evidence given to the jury before the
coroner (2) not the evidence itself." The usefulness of the
testimony ceases with the rinding, it need not be preserved, it
is only to aid in the rinding (a), but it is easier to attach a
transcript and that is the almost universal custom.
As we have already noticed the learning in relation to
the melius inquirendum in England has become obsolete in
Pennsylvania. The coroners in Pennsylvania do not seem
to have been so prone to misbehave as were those in Eng-
land. What should be done in case the jury disagree does
not clearly appear. It seems probable that the coroner
should dismiss them and hold another inquest. But should
(r) But see Ralston's Petition, 9 Dist, 514, s. c. 30 P. L. J., 410
(1900) where it was held in effect that the jury does not have to view
the body.
(j) Regina v. Stockdale, 8 Dowl. P. C, 516 (1840).
(0 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 64-65.
() Pinner's Case, Croke's Elizabeth, 31 pi., 4 (1584) ; Staunde-
ford's Pleas of the Crown, 51 ; Fitzherbert's Abridgment Title Cor-
oners, 107.
(v) Britton, chap, i, Sect. 6.
(w) Edwards v. Gimbel, 202 Pa. St., 30 (1902).
(x) 3 Binney, 621.
(y) Marvin Shaft Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R., 10 (1887), says notes
of testimony cannot be filed.
(*) i & 2 Philip & Mary, cap. 13; 4 Statutes of the Realm, 250
(1554).
(a) Weaver v. Northampton County, 2 Lehigh Valley, 408 (1887).
224 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
the jury misbehave otherwise, it is doubtful what should be
done. If they find facts wholly unwarranted by the evidence
it seems that a melius inquirendum should be granted (b).
Sect. 94. When the coroner returns his inquest the ap-
proval of the court is not required in order to establish the
validity of the proceedings, but no fees will be paid the
coroner without such approval. But the validity of the in-
quest is not effected by the action of the court and it would
sustain a commitment even though the court refused the cor-
oner fees (c). Amendments are freely allowable (d) so that
an inquest is never discharged for a defect if the defect is
capable of being remedied by amendment. Certiorari is still
the proper method of forcing a return (e). In the only re-
ported case where it has been tried it was held to be im-
proper upon facts which lead us to doubt if it is ever proper.
In Ralston's Petition (/) an attempt was made to remove
the proceedings from before the coroner to the common pleas
by certiorari. The petition to that end set forth that the
jury did not view the body and that ex parte affidavits were
read to them. The court however decided it was not a proper
case for certiorari. It is difficult to see how the court could
reach this conclusion without deciding that it was unneces-
sary to hold the inquest super visum corporis, and that wit-
nesses need not appear before the inquisition.
Sect. 95. Hawkins heads the thirty-third section of the
ninth Chapter of his Pleas of the Crown "what high credit
the law gives to an inquisition of death before a coroner."
We have observed what weight was anciently given. But to
a student of modern coroner's law and practice the remark
is well nigh incredible. It is now doubtful whether a
(6) King v. Heathershall, 3 Modern, 80 (1680). But see ante
Sect. 52, note (h).
(c) Reitlinger's Case, 2 Kulp. 127, s. c. 14 Lancaster Bar, 123;
3 York, 101; n Luz. L. Reg., 157 (1882).
(d) Fayette County Coroners Return, 30 Pa. C. C. R., 321, s. c.
35 P. L. J., 265; 9 Del. Co., 431 (1904) ; Metzger's Inquest, 8 Dist., 573
(1899).
(e) So argued by J. W. Johnson in Lancaster County v. Mishler,
100 Pa. St., 624 (1882) and obiter in Ralston's Petition, 9 Dist., 514, s.
c. 30 P. L. J., 410 (1900).
(/) Supra.
EFFECT AND RETURN OF THE INQUEST 225
coroner's verdict is sufficient to found criminal proceedings
upon, it has been said there must be other preliminary pro-
ceedings (g}. Indeed in this state the coroner's verdict has
been said to have no legal effect at all (/t). It is not surpris-
ing therefore that the rule should be inflexible that where a
coroner having jurisdiction in a particular case makes a suffi-
cient record of the inquest, the regularity of the finding can-
not be impeached in a collateral proceeding ('). We are
almost reminded that de minimis non curat lex.
Sect. 96. Evidence taken before the coroner cannot be
admitted in a subsequent trial arising out of the matter of
inquiry to discredit a witness unless it is duly proved by the
coroner (&). The inquest itself is not admissible to prove
suicide on the part of a defendant life insurance com-
pany (/).
(p) 14 Albany Law Journal, 337 (1876) ; n American Law Reg-
ister, 482.
(h) II American Law Reg. 482; Ralston's Petition (supra).
(*) Lancaster County v. Mishler, 100 Pa. St., 624 (1882); sed
quaere, Lancaster County v. Bern, 2 Grant., 262 ( 1852) .
(fe) Edwards v. Gimbel, 202, Pa. St., 30 (1902).
(/) Reynolds v. Supreme Conclave, 19 Lane. L. R., 129, s. c. 2
Blair Co., 210 (1902).
CAPTER IX.
THE CORONER'S DUTIES IN REGARD TO MINES.
Sect. 97. Two duties have been imposed upon the
coroner in Pennsylvania quite different from those required
of him at common law. The first of these is the duty in re-
gard to mines. While it may in general be said that every
thing the coroner is required to do in regard to mines is a
part of his common law duties, the statutes upon the subject
define his duties more specifically and limit and enlarge them
in such particulars as to make it necessary to consider the
subject distinctly. The act of 1891 (a) provides that in the
case of anthracite mines the mine inspector and not the
coroner shall visit the scene of any accident in a mine
wherein lives have been lost or are put in danger and he not
the coroner shall determine whether or not an inquest shall
be held (&). If he determine that an inquest is necessary
he notifies the coroner to hold the inquest without delay.
The coroner then appears and holds a second preliminary
investigation. If he determines that no inquest is necessary
none is held by him (c). But unless he does hold an inquest
(and that within twenty-four hours) the inspector has the
right to go on with the inquest without the coroner (d).
But if the coroner determines to hold an inquest he must do
so in the presence of the inspector. If the inspector be not
present when the inquest is called the coroner must adjourn
the inquest to a future day giving the inspector three days'
notice of the time and place of the inquest (e). Indeed the
coroner must notify the inspector under any circumstances
of the time and place of holding the inquest and the in-
spector has a right to be present and examine witnesses (/).
(a) 2 June 1891 Art. 13 P. L. 202.
(&) Sect. 2 of the above act.
(c) Mestrezat P. J. in Approval of Coroners Inquest, 7 Dist., 566,
s. c. 2 Docket 65 s. c. sub nom Coroners Inquests, 20 Pa. C. C. R.,
660 (1896).
(rf) Act of 2 June, 1891, Art. 13, Sect. 2 P. L., 202.
(*) Sect. 3 of the above act.
(/) Sect. 4 of the above act.
(226)
THE CORONER'S DUTIES IN REGARD TO MINES 227
If the coroner fail to notify the inspector he is without juris-
diction (g'). His jurors are moreover limited to those not
employed in the mine or colliery where the accident happened
nor interested otherwise in the proceedings (&). If the
coroner finds the death to have been due to negligence it
becomes his duty to notify the inspector to remedy the
defects (). From these provisions it appears that the in-
quests held under this act have a different standing from
the common law coroners inquest (&). On the other hand
"it is not every accident resulting in death which under the
mining laws justifies a coroner's inquest. It is only such an
accident resulting in death as would appear to be the result
of some manifest neglect on the part of the operator of the
mine. A death which is the result of the miner's own neg-
lect or carelessness is not one which justifies an inquest.
Nor is a death which is a pure accident" (/). But while
under such circumstances the coroner may refuse to inquire
there is nothing in the act to prevent the mine inspector
from holding his inquest.
"The act of May 15, 1893 (m) requires the persons
having charge of a bituminous coal mine to give notice to
the cororier, of any person killed by reason of any explosion
or other accident in said mine" (n). In this case the coroner
is to make the preliminary investigation. Should it appear
that the death was due to the miners' own carelessness or
neglect no inquest should be held (0). But if thf coroner
determines to hold the inquest, then he must notify the mine
inspector who must attend under practically the same con-
(g) Commonwealth v. Norris, 13 Kulp's Luzerne Legal Register,
i s. c. 15 Dist., 821 (1905) and unless he sets out these facts in his
return the inquest will be quashed.
(h) Sect. 6 of the act of 1891 (supra).
(i) Sect. 5 (supra).
(k) Or those under the special act of 1866, Smith's Case, 4 Lane.
L. R., 302 (1887).
(/) Marvin Shaft Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R., 10 (1887); Cochrane's
Case, 12 Dist., 477 s. c. 27 Pa. C. C. R., 282; 2 Pa. J. L. R., 27 (1903).
(m) Art. 12. Sect. I, P. L., 72. This act has been replaced by
Article 17, i, 2, 3 and 4 of the Act of June 9, 1911, P. L. No. 319,
which substantially re-enacts the previous provisions.
(n) Approval of Coroner's Inquest, 7 Dist., 566; s. c. 2 Docket,
65, s. c. sub nom Coroner's Inquests, 26 Pa. C. C. R., 660 (1896).
(o) Jones's Case, I Pa. C. C. R., 19 (1885); Approval of Cor-
oner's Inquests (supra) ; Cochrane's Case, 12 Dist., 477, s. c. 27 Pa.
C. C. R., 280; 2 Pa. J. L. R., 27 (1903).
228 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
ditions as those which appertain to anthracite mines. The
jury also is similarly qualified. But if the coroner does not
hold an inquest it is expressly provided the inspector shall
"When the coroner or his deputy holds an inquest pur-
suant to a notice under these acts of assembly, the fact
that such notice was given together with the necessity for
holding the inquest should appear in the return" (g), and
the simple statement that "there was strong suspicion of
violence such as to make an inquest necessary" is not enough
(r). Nothing is to be presumed in such cases not even that
the coroner acts in good faith. "We will go so far" said
Archibald, J. (s) "as to presume that this was the case of an
employee in or about a mine or colliery and that the
inquest was made after notice from the mine inspector to
the coroner so as to bring it within Article 14 of the act of
1885 (P. L. 244). But this is going a good way and we
woud advise the coroner in future to set forth such matters
in his return if the court is called upon to approve them.''
(/) Act of 15 May, 1893, Art. 12, Sect. 3, P. L. 72.
() where the sheriff is
a party and there is no coroner in commission, it is made
lawful for any constable in the county to perform the duties
which would otherwise fall upon the coroner. The act is
in derogation of the common law and therefore should be
strictly construed. That being the case if the sheriff and
coroner are both parties to the suit the Court must appoint
elisors (q) to serve the process. So if the sheriff be ex-
ceptionable for any other reason than because he is a party
to the suit and the coroner be exceptionable or there be no
coroner elisors must be appointed. Once elisors have been
appointed neither the sheriff nor coroner may intromit
though both be changed and unexceptionable officers come
into office (r).
The coroner when acting as sheriff may if necessary
summon the posse commitatus (j). The coroner acting as
sheriff is subject to all the laws relating to sheriffs in every
particular. But this is beyond the present subject, it would
be surplusage here to consider the matter.
Another obligation however has been imposed on the
coroner in Pennsylvania, which was no part of his duty at
common law. This is the duty to act as prothonotary.
Though the coroner is not often called upon to act as pro-
thonotary the Act of i6th June, 1836 (*), provides:
"In all suits or actions in which the prothonotary of
the Court shall be a party or in which he may be interested,
the duties herein before (u) required to be performed by
him shall be performed by the recorder of deeds, the clerk
of the Orphans' Court, the sheriff, coroner or treasurer of
the same county."
(0) Moore, 356.
(p) Sect. 19, P. L-. 553-
( 9 ) 2 Wm. Blackstone's Reports, 911; see 8 Henry VII, 12; Dyer,
367.
(r) 15 Edward IV, 24; 18 Edward IV, 8.
(j) Hobart, 85.
(0 Sect. 35, P. L- 724.
(M) In arbitrations.
CHAPTER XII.
ACCOUNTS AND COMPENSATION OF CORONERS.
Sect. 99. Only a de jure coroner can claim any com-
pensation of his services (a) although one de facto may
in some other respects bind the county. It was said in a
recent case (b) that there are only five legitimate items of
expense for the coroner (i) for viewing the body $2.75,
(2) the fee to the surgeon for making the post mortem
where such an examination is necessary, a reasonable
amount (3), summoning and qualifying the inquest $1.37^2,
(4) summoning and qualifying each witness 25c., (5)
mileage. Where there is more than one inquest to be held at
a time the first four charges duplicate with each additional
inquest, but mileage can only be charged once (c). The fees
of the coroner are based (except in such counties as are
provided for by special acts) upon the Act of 28 March,
1814 (d) which reads as follows:
"The fees to be received by the coroner of each county
shall be as follows viz., for viewing a dead body two dollars
seventy-five cents, summoning and qualifying inquest, draw-
ing and returning inquisition one dollar thirty-seven and a
half cents, summoning and qualifying each witness twenty-
five cents to be paid out of the goods and chattels lands or
tenements of the slayer in case of murder or manslaughter
if any he hath, otherwise by the county with mileage from
the court house to the place of viewing the body ; executing
any process or writs of any kind the same fees as are allowed
to the sheriff and the same mileage."
Sect. loo. This act supplies and repeals all prior legis-
lation on the subject. The early laws upon this subject 3re
so interesting, it may be well to pause for a brief digression
to consider them. A fee bill was passed at Upland (since
(o) Pickett v. Erie Co., 19 W. N. C, 60, s. c. 3 Pa. C. C. R., 23
(1887).
(&) Marvin Shaft Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R., to (1887).
(c) Ibid, and see Fayette County v. Batton, 108 Pa. St., 591 (1885).
(), it was provided
that coroners fees might be paid in wheat but though the
statute has never been repealed, it is doubtful if the coroner
would accept to-day a tender made in that way.
By the Act of 1834 (q) "The auditors of each country,
any two of whom when duly convened shall be a quorum
shall audit settle and adjust the accounts of the commis-
sioners, treasurer and sheriff and coroner of the county and
make reports thereof to the common pleas of such county to-
gether with a statement of the balance due from or to such
commissioners, treasurer, sheriff or coroner."
Sect. 101. The law coroners fees is pernicious through-
out. It being granted by the overwhelming weight of au-
thority that the holding of an inquest is a matter wholly
within the coroner's discretion it would seem from principle
that his fees should be allowed whensoever he sees fit to
hold an inquest, unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.
In the case of the King v. The Justices of Kent (r) how-
ever for the first time in legal record fees were refused to
the coroner on the ground that there was no reason for hold-
ing the inquisition. In Pennsylvania this doctrine found
an opening wedge in Northampton County v. Innes (s).
In that case the deceased died in his own home surrounded
by his family. It was said that these facts might be used
as an argument by the county against the coroner's claim for
fees for the inquest on the ground that it was unnecessary
this inference was made law in Lancaster County v. Mishler
(/). It may be true that " it is no part of the coroner's duty to
hold inquests for the protection or vindication of individuals
and the county cannot be charged with the expense of one
held for such a purpose. As we have already said the ob-
ject of the inquest is to detect and aid in the punishment of
(/>) Sect. 3, 10 Statutes at Large, 39.
(<7) Sect. 48 P. L. 545-
(r) ri East 229 (1809).
(s) 26 Pa. St., 156; 3 P. L. J., 644 (1856).
(0 100 Pa. St. 624 (1882), and see Pickett v. Erie County, 19 W.
N. C, 60, s. c. 3 Pa. C. C R., 23 (1882) ; Lee's Case, 9 Pa. C. C. R., 474
(1891) ; Coroner's Inquests, 28 Pa. C. C. R., 428 (1903), and McFad-
gen v. Chester County, 10 Pa. C. C. R., 124, s. c. 7 Mont., 149 (1891).
238 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
crime; where the death is free from the suspicion of crime
and is apparently from natural causes no inquest is neces-
sary" (u). But it can scarcely be conceded that the Court
is judge of the necessity for holding the inquest (v) and that
if no inquest is deemed by them to have been necessary no
fees should be paid, though the overwhelming weight of
common pleas and quarter sessions authority supports such
a view (w). The only recent appellate decision Miller v.
Cambria County (x) goes to the length of saying that if
the coroner act without sufficient cause the county is not
liable for his fees. This must be the law of the common-
wealth but it is respectfully submitted it is very carelessly
worded. The more careful opinion in Fayette County
Coroners Return (y) is more correct. If the coroner in-
vestigates without being satisfied in his own mind that it is
necessary he cannot hold the county; to support this view
we have the innumerable cases which hold that the decision
to hold or not to hold an inquest is a judicial determina-
tion (2). It seems as though the rule should be that this
determination should be final unless there is an abuse of
discretion, but the county courts go upon the theory that
"he must exercise his discretion wisely" (a) and "the courts
are to determine not whether there was reasonable cause for
holding an inquest but whether there was reasonable cause
for holding the inquest which is asked to be approved" (&)
giving them an ex post facto power to refuse to pay the
(u) Per Hemphill, J., McFadgen v. Chester County, 10 Pa. C. C. R.,
124, s. c. 7 Mont. 149 (1891).
(v) As was said in King v. Justices of Kent (supra).
(w) Lee's Case (supra) Fayette County v. Batton, 108 Pa. St.,
591 (1885); McFadgen v. Chester County (supra); Burn's Case, 5
Pa. C. C. R., 548 (1888), Pf out's Case, 7 Pa. C. C. R., 265 (1889);
Witmore's Case, 3 Dist, 699, s. c. 14 Pa. C. C. R., 463 (1894).
(x) 29 Superior, 166 (1905).
(y) 24 Pa. C. C. R., 498 (1900).
(2) Fayette County Coroners Return, 24 Pa. C. C. R., 498 (1900) ;
Commonwealth v. Higgins, 2 Kulp, 269 (1889).
(a) Weaver v. Northampton County, 2 Lehigh Valley, 408 (1887).
though in the same opinion it is said "but if he acts unwisely it is
neither in the power of the court nor the commissioners to rectify such
acts."
(6) Reitlinger's Case, 2 Kulp 127, s. c. 14 Lane. Bar, 123; 3 York,
101; ii Luz. L. Reg., 157 (1882).
ACCOUNTS AND COMPENSATION OF CORONERS 239
coroner when they themselves would with the facts he had
before him have determined to hold the inquest.
The justice acting as coroner is on a very different
footing, for he by statute (c) has no right to fees until his
inquisition is returned to and approved by the court of
quarter sessions (d). His return is not conclusive to estab-
lish his right to fees and evidence should be received as to
the necessity for holding the inquest (e) in his case the
quarter sessions may well assume the ex post facto position
they have presumed to occupy with the coroner.
Even though an inquisition be void as between the
coroner and the county on a claim for fees it is valid for
all other purposes (/) such as to commit a prisoner (g).
Sect. 1 02. The coroner's fees as we have seen are first
for viewing the body $2.75. This fee is however only for
cases where the view is made in connection with an inquest
actually taken (h). An attempt was made in Watson v.
Beaver County to extend it to cases where the coroner hav-
ing been called upon to hold an inquest views the body and
determines no inquest is necessary. But Wickham, P. J.,
held that the fee bill did not contemplate compensation for
the coroner in such cases; he acknowledged that this was
a hardship to the coroner but "this" he said "is a matter
for the legislature to consider" (t). In spite of this recom-
mendation to the assembly, it was not until six years after
the decision of Watson v. Beaver County, that an act was
finally passed making provision for fees in such cases.'
The act (k) provides as follows: "That whenever
(c) Act of 27 May, 1841, Sect. 15, P. L., 404.
(d) Pickett v. Erie County, 19 W. N. C, 60, s. c. 3 Pa. C. C. R.,
23 (1887).
(e) Reitlinger's Case, 2 Kulp, 127, s. c. 14 Lane. Bar, 123; 3
York, 101; 11 Luz. L. Reg. 157 (1882).
(/) Reitlinger's Case (supra).
(g) Picket v. Erie County (supra).
(h) Burnett v. Lackawanna County, 9 Pa. C. C. R., 95! Watson v.
Beaver Co., 9 Pa., C. C. R., 495, s. c. 27 W. N. C, 469 (ifci).
(t) In Watson v. Beaver County (supra) and see the remarks of
Hemphill J. in McFadgen v. Chester Co., 10 Pa. C. C. R., 124 s. c. 7
Mont 149 (1891), and see Witmore's Case, 3 Dist., 699, s. c.; 14 Pa.
C. C. R., 463 d894).
(*) Act of 30 March, 1897, P. L, 8; see Troutman v. Chambers, 9
Dist, 533 (1900).
240 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
the coroner shall have been called and views a dead body
and decides that no inquest is necessary he shall certify and
return this fact as inquests are now returned and for such
services he shall receive the same fee (/) and mileage as is
now allowed by law for such view, when followed by an
inquest, such fee and mileage to be paid as provided by law
where an inquest is held." It is worthy of note that the
coroner is entitled only to the fees provided for by the act
and as he could have no fees at all before the act if no in-
quest were held so under the act he can have no fees for
swearing witnesses at the preliminary examination (m~).
Although the Act of 1897 does not mention justices of
the peace it has in one case at least (n) been construed in
pari matria with the Act of 1841 "when a justice of the
peace acts as coroner he must perform the like duties and
should receive the like fees. This plainly appears as the
intention of the legislature when the two acts are construed
together" (0).
Second his fee for summoning and qualifying inquest
drawing and returning the inquisition $i. 375^2 The act
contemplates the coroner shall himself summon the inquest
(/>) and not issue a precept to the sheriff or constable as at
common law (q). If he hire the constable therefor he
must pay for it out of his own pocket (r).
Third, summoning and qualifying each witness 2$c.,
to be paid out of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements
of the slayer, in case of murder or manslaughter, if any
_(/) Viz.: $2.75 Troutman v. Chambers (supra.}
(m) Fayette County Coroner's Return, 24 Pa. C. C. R., 498 (1900)
for a discussion of deputy coroners fees and the acts of 1889, '93 and
'97; see Fayette County Deputy Coroners Case, 20 Pa. C. C. R., 641, s.
c. 7 Dist. 568 (1898). Grove's Case, 26 Pa. C. C. R., 449 (1900).
(n) Coroners Inquests, 28 Pa. C. C. R., 428 (1903).
(0) Coroners Inquests (supra), but see contra, Grove's Case
(supra).
(p) Metzger's Inquest, 8 Dist, 373 (1899); Marvin Shaft In-
quest, 3 Pa. C. C. R., 10 (1887).
(q) Fleta Lib., I, cap. 25; Britton, cap. i, Sect. 5; 2 Male's Pleas
of the Crown, 59. The old fee bills supra, gave him a fee for issuing
a precept to summon the inquest.
(r) Metzger's Inquest (supra), in Re Coroners Inquests, i Pa. C.
C R., 14, s. c. 3 Kulp, 451 ; 2 Del. Co., 446; 3 Lane. L. R., 70 (1885) ;
Marvin Shaft Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R., 10 (1887).
ACCOUNTS AND COMPENSATION OF CORONERS 241
he hath otherwise by the county. But witnesses must come
of their own accord; they are not entitled to mileage (s).
Nor are they entitled to witness fees (f) for it is the pub-
lic duty of every citizen to give his testimony to the coroner
gratis that the ends of public justice may be served ().
Indeed to allow one witness at an inquest a fee is an in-
fraction of the fee bill (v). A witness at a coroner's in-
quest is entitled to no fee even though he be an expert (/).
But a doctor who makes a post mortem examination is in a
different situation such services are extraordinary for he
could not be forced to open the body (JF). In Allegheny
v. Watts the coroner's jury could not agree upon a verdict
and for the purpose of assisting them in their determination
the coroner called in a physician who made a post mortem
examination of the body whereupon the jury agreed. Upon
these facts it was broadly laid down that a physician mak-
ing a post mortem examination for the coroner can hold
the county liable for his fee. But the fee must be only
reasonable compensation (y). In other words the coroner
may hire a physician to make a post mortem examination
and charge the county with his fee (2} so may a justice of
the peace acting as coroner under the act of 1841 (a).
(s) In re Coroners' Inquests (supra), in re Coroners' Inquests,
2 Del. Co., 475 (1886).
(0 Marvin Shaft Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R., 10 (1887) ; Fayette
County Coroners Return, 24 Pa. C. C. R., 498 (1900).
(w) Per Gibson C. J. in Allegheny v. Watts, 3 Pa. St., 462 (1846),
and see in re Coroners' Inquests (supra), Marvin Shaft Inquest
(supra), Fayette County Coroners Return (supra).
(v) Allegheny v. Watts, 3 Pa. St., 462 (1846) followed Com-
monwealth v. Higgins, 2 Kulp, 269 (1889).
(w) Allegheny v. Watts (supra), Commonwealth v. Higgins
(supra).
(*) Allegheny v. Watts (supra).
(y) Allegheny v. Watts (supra), in re Coroners' Inquests, i Pa.
C C. R., 14, s. c. 3 Kulp, 451; 2 Del. Co., 446 (1885) ; Metzger's In-
quest (supra), Commonwealth v. Harman, 4 Pa. St., 269, affirming 6
P. L. ]., 120 (1846); Northampton County v. Innes, 26 Pa. St., 156
(1856); 3 P. L. ]., 644; Lancaster County v. Mishler, 100 Pa.
St., 624 (1882) ; Walker v. McKean, 31 Pa. C. C. R., 664 (1005) ; Alle-
gheny County v. Shaw, 34 Pa. St., 301 (1859), and see 7 P. L. ]., 217;
12 W. N. C., 312 ; 14 Lane. Bar, 101 ; 30 Pitts. L. ]., 361 ; 39 L. I., 459,
and this even though the county commissioners had hired a regular
physician at a fixed salary (ibid.)
(*) Allegheny v. Watts (supra).
(a) Pickett v. Erie County, 19 W. N. C., 60, s. c. 3 Pa. C. C. R.,
242 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
Luzerne County v. Day (&) appears at first blush to be con-
trary to this general rule, but that case only decides that the
physician must demand his fee of the county commission-
ers, before he can sue for it. An autopsy is not always neces-
sary (c) and whether it is or not is for the coroner to de-
termine (d). It follows from this that should it be made
to appear by the post mortem examination that the death
was due to natural causes, the county court ever careful of
the local purse might refuse the coroner his fees, but the
physician could still demand and recover reasonable com-
pensation for his services. Indeed, though the coroner who
held the inquest was not de jure an officer, the county is
liable to the doctor. "When a physician is summoned to aid
in a post mortem examination it is not his business to insti-
tute a preliminary investigation to determine whether the
inquest should be held or not. * * * It is sufficient for
him to know that the proper officer of the county requires
his services" (). Wherever the coroner acts as
sheriff he receives the same compensation as the sheriff re-
ceives for similar services (#).
In Bucks County Coroners' Inquisitions (r) it was held
that the coroner could only charge for the miles actually
travelled and not from the court house (.$) to the place where
the body was found if it so be that that were a greater
distance.
Sect. 103. It was decided in Allegheny v. Watts (0
that the coroner has authority to charge the county the
expenses of all services ancillary to the inquisition. This
rule was extended by the case of Pickett v. Erie County
(). But this does not include the costs of livery hire nor
a stenographer to take the notes of testimony (v*). Where
the coroner found a body floating in the river viewed it and
decided no inquest was necessary ; the plaintiffs having ship-
ped the body to its friends, sued the county for the costs,
it was held the county was not liable (w).
Sect. 104. A peculiar point has arisen in connection
with the performance of the coroner's duties under the Act
(/>) And this view was affirmed Coroners Inquests (supra), Cor-
oners Inquests, 2 Del. Co. 475 (1886), Marvin Shaft Inquest (supra),
citing Clerk v. Barber, 2 Law Times N. S. 61.
(q) By the Act of 28 March, 1814, Sect. 19 P. L. 363 reaffirmed
except as to Allegheny, Lancaster, Montgomery, Philadelphia, Beaver
and Washington, and as to the sheriff of Dauphin by the Act of 2 April,
1868, P. L. 14, and made general by the Act of 12 Tune, 1878, Sect. 2
P. L. 188.
(r) 17 Pa. C. C R., 553 (1894)-
(s) Under the Act of 1867 extended to Bucks in 1868.
(0 3 Pa. St., 462 (1846).
(M) 19 W. N. C. 60, s. c. 3 Pa. C. C. R., 23 (1887) a charge for
a watchman is an auxiliary expense but not coroner's clerk hire, Weaver
v. Northampton County, 2 Lehigh Valley, 408 (1887).
(v) Marvin Shaft Inquest (supra}.
(vf) Carson v. Forrest Co. 14 Dist. 818 s. c. 9 Del. 490, 3 Pa
J. L. R., 262 (1905).
ACCOUNTS AND COMPENSATION OF CORONERS 245
of 1897, by his deputy. Judge Mestrezat has given us a
lucid opinion on this point (#) which it may be well to
quote at length.
"On the Qth of May, 1889, an Act of Assembly was
approved entitled 'An Act to provide for the appointing
of deputy coroners in the several counties of this Com-
monwealth/ The first section of this act authorized the
coroner to appoint deputies. The second section provided
as follows: 'That such person so deputized by him as
aforesaid shall receive, for such services as they may per-
form by virtue of said appointment, the same fees as are
now provided by law for similar services rendered by said
coroner, and the same shall be paid from such funds and at
such places as the said fees of the said coroner are now
by law payable.' The third and last section of the Act
repealed all inconsistent acts or parts thereof.
"On June 6, 1893, an act was approved entitled 'An
Act to provide for the appointment of one or more deputy
coroners and defining their power and duties in the several
counties of this commonwealth!' The first section of this
act authorizes the coroner to 'appoint one or more deputies
to act in his place and stead as he may deem proper and
necessary.' The second section provides that 'such deputy
or deputies so appointed shall have like power to hold in-
quests to select, summon and compel the attendance of
jurors and witnesses and to administer oaths.' The powers
and duties of the deputy coroner were not designated or
limited by the Act of 1889. They are by the Act of 1893.
"It will be observed that the Act of 1893 supplies the
first section of the Act of 1889. The first section of the Act
of 1893, as we nave seen authorizes the appointment of
deputies, and the second section defines their powers. The
second section of the Act of 1889, is not repealed or sup-
plied by the Act of 1893, and provides for the payment of
(x) Fayette County Deputy Coroner's Case, 20 Pa. C. C. R., 641,
8. c. 7 Dist., 568 (1898); Grove's Case, 26 Pa. C. C. R., 449 (1900);
and see also Troutman v. Chambers, 9 Dist, 533 (1900), and Echard v.
Fayette County, 5 Dist., 371 s. c. 26 P. L. J., 461 ; 43 P. L. J., 461 (o. s.)
(1896) ; Fogarty v. Schuylkill County, 13 Pa. C. C R., 454 (1893).
246 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
the deputy coroner. Such is the general legislation on this
subject in the State to-day.
"It is under this legislation and the Act of 1897, that
the deputy coroners claim the fees for making these in-
vestigations. The Act of 1897, is entitled 'An act to provide
for the payment and mileage of coroners for viewing a
dead body where no inquest is held.' There is but one sec-
tion in this act, and it is as follows: 'That whenever the
coroner shall have been called and views a dead body and
decides that no inquest is necessary, he shall certify and
return this fact as inquests are now returned; and for such
services he shall receive the same fee and mileage as is now
allowed by law for such view, when followed by an inquest ;
said fee and mileage to be paid as provided by law where
an inquest is held.'
"It is to be observed, therefore, that the power, duties
and compensation of deputy coroners in the performance
of their judicial functions are wholly dependent upon statu-
tory enactment. At common law, as we have seen, the
coroner could not appoint a deputy, and there was no pro-
vision for fees for either a coroner or his deputy. Admit-
ting for the present the constitutionality of the Act of 1889,
we cannot see that the deputy coroners are entitled to the
fees claimed in the returns they have made in this proceed-
ing.
"The first section of the Act of 1893, authorizes the
appointment by the coroner of one or more deputies. But
the powers of these deputies are not general, but are defined
and limited by the second section of that act. They have
like power with the coroner 'to hold inquests, to select, sum-
mon and compel the attendance of jurors and witnesses and
to administer oaths.' For these, and no other services, com-
pensation is provided by the Act of 1889.
The title of the Act of 1897 shows that said act was
intended to provide compensation for the coroner for the
services therein named. These services are to be performed
by the coroner. They are not the services mentioned in the
second section o-f the Act of 1893, which a deputy is au-
thorized to perform, and hence he cannot perform them.
ACCOUNTS AND COMPENSATION OF CORONERS 247
Unless, therefore, there is some other legislation that brings
the deputy coroner within the purview of the Act of 1897,
he has no right to fees for performing the services required
in said act. We know of no such legislation. As said
above, the Act of 1893, authorizing the coroner to appoint
deputies, prescribed the power and authority of such ap-
pointees. The deputy coroner having no power under the
Act of 1893, to perform the services mentioned in the Act
of 1897 and being allowed fees for only 'such services as he
may perform by virtue of his appointment,' cannot recover
fees for services rendered under the Act of 1897."
Sect. 105. Where more than one inquest is held at one
and the same time another peculiar question arises. To what
fees are the coroner and his jury entitled? In Fayette
County v. Batton (x} there were nineteen several views and
fees were allowed for nineteen cases. But nowhere,
where there has been one view only have fees been allowed
for mileage, more than once (y). The witnesses had only
to be summoned once but they had to be qualified in each
case, that fee therefore was paid in each case (2). But
whether or not the jury should be paid for more than one
view is a matter of doubt, but so long as the same jury acts
in each case their fees can only be paid once (a).
Sect. 1 06. Section 5 of Article 14 of the State Con-
stitution (b) provides that in counties of over 150,000 in-
habitants the county officers shall be paid by salary and not
by fees. This section has been executed by a series of acts
which provide in substance that in counties of over one mil-
lion inhabitants the salary of the coroner shall be eight thou-
sand dollars (bb), in counties of over 800,000 inhabitants
(x) 108 Pa. St., 591 (1885).
(y) Rambo v. Chester Co. No. 2, i Chester Co. 416 (1878) ; Anon-
ymous Q. S. Fayette Co. No. 117, December Sessions 1883, Mss. Francis
v. Tioga County, 8 Pa. C. C. R., 163 (1889) ; Weaver v. Northampton
County, 2 Lehigh Valley, 408 (1887).
(s) Rambo v. Chester Co. No. 2 (supra), Weaver v. Northamp-
ton County, (supra'), Francis v. Tioga County (supra).
(a) Weaver v. Northampton County (supra), Rambo v. Chester
County No. 2 (supra).
(&) i Purdon's Digest (i3th Ed.) p. 204.
(bb) Act of i June, 1911, P. L. No. 220.
248 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
and less than one million inhabitants (c), the salary of the
coroner shall be five thousand dollars (rf), in counties of
over 500,000 and less than 800,000 inhabitants (e) the sal-
ary of the coroner shall be five thousand dollars (/). In
counties having more than 250,000 and less than 500,000
inhabitants the salary of the coroner is two thousand dol-
lars (g), in counties having over 150,000 and less than
250,000 the salary of the coroner shall be two thousand
dollars (/).
In all these acts however (t) the coroner's salary is only
to be paid to the full amount provided the fees earned by
him less the amounts paid to his deputy and clerk equal or
exceed the amount of his salary (&) so that all the evils
of the fee system are retained as far as possible.
(c) Act of 21 March, 1899, Sect, i, P. L. 12, this act supersedes
the local acts relating to Philadelphia County, viz., the Act of 16
April, 1845, Sect. 9, P. L. 539 ; the Act of 12 April, 1856, Sect, i, P. L.
324 ; the Act of 22 March, 1867, Sects, i, 2 and 3 P. L. 532 ; and the Act
of 18 March, 1869, Sect, i, P. L. 404.
(rf) And the deputy coroner $2,500.
(e) Act of 21 March, 1899, Sect. I, P. L. 12, this supersedes the
special Act of 6 March, 1872, Sect. 3, P. L. 209 relating to Allegheny
County.
(/) And the assistant coroner $2,000.
(g) Act of 10 July, 1901, Sect. I, P. L. 641.
(A) Act of 2 July, 1895, Sect. I, P. L. 424.
(i) They are all amendments or supplements to the Act of 31
March 1876, P. L. 13.
(&) Philadelphia v. Glibert, 14 Phila., 212; s. c. 37 Legal Int., 376
(1880); Bleiler v. Muldoon, 16 Pa. Superior, 553 (1901), the former
case, however, decides that the fees upon which the total sums are to
be calculated are those provided by the Act of 16 April, 1845, Sect. 9,
P. L. 539, and 22 March, 1867 Sects i, 2 and 3, P. L. 532.
CONCLUSION.
From what we have seen of the condition of the law
in Pennsylvania, we cannot but dwell for a few moments
on the needful changes that frequently suggest themselves.
It is easy to criticise and difficult to construct. Such is the
state of the law on the subject that hasty legislation would
in all probability cause more confusion than already exists,
but it is unquestionable that legislation of a thorough char-
acter is needed in this State to bring order out of chaos.
The Act of 1907 was not even a step towards this. The
whole matter should be carefully gone over and the law
codified. We cannot agree with the Court who said in
Groves Case, 26 Pa., C. C. R. 449 (1900), "the true remedy
for the abuses in the coroner's office is its absolute abolition.
The original purpose of investigating crime through it, is
better accomplished in the district attorney's office, without
being hampered by meddlesome and consequential officers.
We have had at least one instance where the coroner's
blustering interference and bombast actually obstructed the
investigation of a serious murder." All of which may be
true, but no reason for the Court's conclusion.
An act putting all coroners on a salary basis freed from
the necessity of making his fees pay the salary would be of
benefit to the community for the coroner would no longer
need to take unnecessary inquests that he might get fees
therefor, they would no longer "obtrude themselves into
private families to their great annoyance and discomfort
without any pretence of the deceased having died otherwise
than a natural death," as was said by Lord Ellenborough,
Rex v. Justices of Kent, n East, 229. The judges always
careful of the taxpayers purse would not need to review the
coroner's accounts and feel constrained to stretch every
point to hold every inquest illegal that did not produce a
criminal, so discouraging the investigation of crime. The
whole matter should be referred to a commission and a com-
prehensive act passed which would repeal the act of fourth
Edward I and put the whole office on a modern basis.
APPENDICES.
A. FORM OF CORONER'S BOND AND RECOGNIZANCE.
The form of recognizance to be taken from the coro-
ner of each county, and his sureties, shall be as follows, to
wit: You, A. B. and C. D. and E. F. acknowledge that
you owe the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania the sum of
dollars to be levied and made of your
several goods and chattels, lands and tenements upon con-
dition that you, A. B., shall and do well and truly perform
all and singular the duties to the office of coroner of the
County of X. appertaining to which you have been elected,
and this recognizance to be void or else to be and remain
in full force and virtue. Taken and acknowledged the
day of , A. D.
Before me
Recorder of Deeds, for the County of
The form of bond to be given by the coroner and his
sureties, shall be as follows, to wit : Know all men by these
presents, that we, A. B. as principal, and C. D. and E. F.
as sureties, are held and firmly bound unto the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania in the sum of dollars,
to be paid unto the said Commonwealth for the uses, intents
and purposes declared and appointed by law, to which pay-
ment well and truly to be made we bind and oblige our-
selves, our heirs, executors, administrators and successors,
jointly and severally firmly by these presents.
Sealed with our seals and dated the day of
, Anno Domini 19 .
The condition of the above obligation is such that if
the above bounden A. B., who has been elected coroner of
the County of X., shall well and truly perform all and sin-
gular the duties to the said office of coroner appertaining,
then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force
and virtue.
Sealed and delivered
in presence of :
(250)
APPENDICES 251
B. OATH OF JURORS GIVEN IN THE MIRROR.
"You shall say by your oath concerning the death of
him whom you have seen whether he died by felony or
misadventure. If from felony whether by his own felony
or by another, if from misadventure whether it came from
God or man, if from famine, whether from poverty or com-
mon pestelence, and you shall say from whence he came and
who he was. And if he died from another's felony who
were principals and who were assessories and also if the
hue and cry were duly raised or not, and if the neighbors
ran thither as was right or not, and if the menee was rightly
followed or not. Likewise who threatened his life or limb
and who were pledges for his peace, and you shall say if he
died through long imprisonment or torment, and by whose
action he was further from life or nearer to death. And
likewise all circumstances which could furnish ground for
presumption. In cases where the person died from drown-
ing or falling or other visitation of God and had not the
power of speaking before his death you are to say the
names of the finders and the four nearest neighbors who
were his kinsfolk. And further if he were killed there or
elsewhere and if elsewhere by whom and how he was
brought there. And then the value of the deodand, its
species and to whose hand it has come."
C. FORFEITURE FOR FLIGHT FROM STAUNDEFORD's PLEAS OF
THE CROWN.
A man indicted before the coroner for the death of
another before whom it is also found by the same indict-
ment that he fled on account of the said felony in such
case notwithstanding that the jury which acquits him says,
that he did not flee for the said felony all his goods are for-
feited as appears in Fitzherbert title Forfeiture, p. 35, 26.
For the king in such case is able to hold that by his record
which is to his own advantage. And such is the record
of the coroner. The same rule applies if one indicted for
felony is acquitted and the jury which acquits him says he
252 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
did fly for the same felony, Fitz. tit. Cor. 296, 344-32
and it is an ancient law of the coroner of which Bracton
and Britton both make mention. * * * *
For notwithstanding his acquittal still he is to be
suspected of the felony for the vehement presumption
"which has risen against him" also his goods through his
"flight or retreat" as by the indictment. But he against
whom the inquest finds fugam fecit whether it is traver-
sable or not is a question. For nothing concerning them is
other than an inquest of office as to that part of their ver-
dict which concerns flight. And yet by that it is not bound
that they have to be traversed and the reason is because
they are only chattels for which no traverse is given against
the king by any law yet made for the law reputes chattels
among the minima de quibus non curat and for this rea-
son it will be good for the coroner and judge inquests to be
discreet and circumspect to see that the jury are not to the
smallest extent seduced either by lack of evidence or through
ignorance to the annullment of that against which they
will give verdict and which the circumspection of the judge
avoids, see 4 H 7 f 18, for he abridges the coroner from
one power which he would have usurped thus "in inquiring
concerning those who were accessories after the murder
or homicide." For as to such he is not to interfere because
that one who was killed did not come to his death by them.
But he has to interfere only as to those who were the
causes of the death and those were the principals and ac-
cessories before the fact. Therefore when he indicts one
because he has feloniously received the murderer and be-
cause he made a flight, the indictment is void, and conse-
quently the fugam fecit as appears in Fitz., p. 10., and thus
note that a fugam fecit presented before the coroner against
one who is accessory before the fact will give forfeiture
just as much it will do so where it is presented against
that one who is the principal felon. The rule is the same
where the jury which acquits an accessory finds that he
fled for that felony. And in such d'arraine case of ac-
quittal before the justices it is not material that he was
accessory before the fact or after for they have sufficient
power to inquire and by their verdict he will forfeit in
APPENDICES 253
both cases. Likewise one indicted, except for petty
larceny, is acquitted yet if it were found that he fled his
chattels would be forfeited as appears, Fitz. 406, and note
in the same manner that one will forfeit his chattels he will
forfeit them in the same way notwithstanding that he has
his pardon for the said felony, Fitz. 338, &c. For the
charter of pardon continues the presumption against him
that he did the felony rather than take it away, Fitz. 339,
where one was presented before the justices in Eyre for
having killed a man and that he had his charter of pardon
for it. And yet notwithstanding this, they adjudge that
his goods be forfeited. And yet in the book it does not
appear that there was any fugam fecit presented. And
moreover it is a question whether this is law or not. And
note that this fugam fecit is meant as much concerning a
fugitive after he is arrested for the felony as it is where
he fled before the arrest, Fitz. 289-290, 312, where it ap-
pears also that if on his flight he is killed by those who
would have arrested him and it is presented before the
justices in Eyre or other justices of record, who have power
to inquire he forfeits his goods. And there again he is in a
case that he cannot be acquitted or attainted of the felony
but it follows if he remains in life for in such case he
forfeits nothing under the fugam fecit found if it is not
also a felony.
D. PORTIONS OF THE SO-CALLED STATUTE OF 4 EDWARD I
NOW IN FORCE IN PENNSYLVANIA.
"These things are to be inquired by the coroner. * * *
First, when the coroners * * * have command * * * from
the good men of the county to go where any are slain or
suddenly dead * * * they ought forthwith to go and com-
mand * * * (a jury) to be before them in such place and
when they shall be come thither the coroner ought upon the
oath of them to make inquiry in this manner to wit: if it
be of a person slain it is first to be inquired where he was
slain to wit whether it were in a field or in a house or at
any wrestling or at a tavern or in any company and whether
any and who was there. In like manner it is to be in-
quired whether any and what persons are culpable either
254 OFFICE AND DUTIES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORONERS
of the fact or of the force and who were present, men or
women, of what age soever they be, so that they can speak
and have any discretion. * * * But if any such man be
slain in the fields or in the woods and be found there, it
is first to be seen whether he were slain there or not; if he
were brought thither let them trace the steps if they pos-
sibly can of those who brought the body thither, whether
horses brought it or a cart, if perchance it were brought by
a horse or cart. Let it be inquired also whether the person
slain were known or were a stranger, and where he lodged
the night before. * * * These things being inquired the
bodies of the persons dead or slain shall be forthwith buried.
"In like manner it is to be inquired of them that are
drowned or suddenly dead; and afterwards it is to be
seen of such bodies whether the persons were so drowned
or slain or strangled by the mark on the neck, or by a mark
on any of the limbs or by any hurt found on the body and
so they are to proceed in form aforesaid * * *."
E. FORM OF RETURN GIVEN BY JERVIS.
Middlesex, to wit : An Inquisition indented and taken
for our sovereign lady the Queen at the house of John Denn
known by the sign of the lamb situate in Street
in the parish of in the County of Middlesex
on the first day of January, in the twenty-seventh year of
the reign of our sovereign lady Victoria before J. W. gen-
tleman one of the coroners of our said lady the Queen for
the said county on view of the body of Richard Fenn then
and there lying dead upon the oath (or oath and affirma-
tion) of C. D., E. F., G. H., etc., (naming the jurors sworn)
good and lawful men of the said county, duly chosen, who
being then and there duly sworn and charged to inquire
for our said lady the Queen when how and by what means
the said Richard Fenn came to his death do upon their oaths
say.
Here follows the verdict.
In witness whereof as well the said Coroner as the
jurors aforesaid have hereunto set and subscribed their
hands and seals the day and year first above written.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
(References are to pages.)
Pages
Abbreviatio Originaliam, Vol. i 15
Albany Law Journal, Vol 14 225
Albus, Liber 32
American and English Encyclopedia of Law, Vol. 29, page 1001 192
American Law Register, Vol. 6 (O. S.) 3, 4
American Law Register, Vol. u 3, 4, 225
Archeological Journal, Vol. 46 n
Bacon's Abridgment, Vol. 2 7, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 31, 32, 33, 42, 45
64, 71, 74, 83, 85, 89
Bacon's Abridgment Title Outlawry 72
Bacon on Government 7, 8, 17, 18, 42
Bigelow on Procedure 14
Birch Cartularium Saxonicum, Vol. 2 8
Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. I 7, 8, 17, 20, 21, 33, 44, 46, 47
49, 50, Si, 52, 54, 58, 67, 68
85, 89, 92, TOO, 124, 139, 170, 231
Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 4 58, 63, 84, 89, 170
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Vol. 2 191
Bracton Note Book, Vols. 2 and 3 17, 56
Bracton Retorn de Briefs 57, 71
Bracton's Treatise 3, i?, 29, 33, 55, 57, 58, 60, 66, 67, 68, 69, 85, 86
93, 94, 95, "6, 122, 123, 169
Bracton's Treatise Sir Travis Twiss's Introduction 37, 85
Britton 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 33, 44, 45, 46, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 65, 66, 67
68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94
95, 96, 98, 99, ioo, 101, 102, 107, 113, 122, 123, 135, 136, 213
223, 240
Brooks' Abridgment Title Appeal 17, 64, 70, 82, 83, 131
" Conspiracy 91
" Coroner. . .17, 42, 61, 62, 63, 131, 133, 136, 137
" Indictment 65, 66, 131
" Officer 46, 139
" Process 71
" " " Traverse 133, 134, 135
Brooks' Abridgment Ttile Ultagarius 72
Buller's Nisi Prius 117
Burns' Justices, Vol. I 76
" " 2 31,32,61,84,93,109,135
Century Dictionary, Vol. 8, p. 6761 191
Chambers on Local Government 33
Chitty's Criminal Law 123, 125, 132
Close Rolls, Vol. i and Vol. 2 33, 45, 52
Code d' Instruction Criminell 3
(255)
256 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Pages
Coke's Book of Entries 127, 135
Coke's Institutes, Vol. 2 7, 8, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 32, 34, 42
44 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 64
65, 66, 69, 70, 87, 98, 124, 133, 135
Cokes' Institutes, Yol. 3.... 27, 28, 42, 60, 63, 87, 99, 115, 133, 134
Coke's Institutes, Vol. 4 7, 20, 21, 28, 33, 34, 46, 47, 49, 54
64, 65, 66, 84, 139
Coke Upon Littleton 31, 71, 72
Coke's Pleas of the Crown 21, 74, 76, 133, 137
Comyns' Digest Title Attaint 103
Comyns' Digest Title Officer 7, 8, 20, 21, 24, 45, 46, 51, 54, 62, 66
67, 68, 69, 84, 88, 139, 142, 231
Cooper Records, Vol. I , 45
Crabbe's History of the Law of England 7, 9
Crompton's Justices 1 84, 86, 97, 98, 109
Cust, Liber 32
Dalton on Sheriffs 17
Devon Abb. Placit 33
Doctor and Student 71
Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicae, Vol. 4 8
Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicae, Vol. 6 17, 56
East's Pleas of the Crown, Vol. i 42, 58, 62, 89, 91, 92, no, 132, 134
214
Finch Law 17, 56, 68, 131
Encyclopedia of Evidence, Vol. 3, p. 574 137
English Historical Review, Vol. 8 10, 12
Eyton's Shropskire, Vol. 4 46
Finch Law 17, 56, 68, 131
Fitzherbert's Abridgment 28, 42, 57, 60, 61, 63, 64, 68, 69, 70, 75, 84
87, 89, 93, 97, 126, 131, 133, 135, 136, 137
223
Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium 20, 33, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, ST, 52
53, 88, 143, 144
Fleta 17, 18, 29, 33, 40, 42, 44, 54, 55, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67
68, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 103, 116, 123, 131, 214, 240
Foedera, Rymer, Vol. 1 12
Forsythe Trial by Jury 70
Fortescue de Laudibus 99, 104, 140
Foss's Judges 10
Foster's Criminal Law 132
Genesis, The Book of 3
Geoffrey de Mandeville (Round) 1 1, 12
Gilbert on Evidence 115
Gilbert's Historical View of the Exchequer 21, 54, 55, 59, 70, 82
Gloucester Pleas 19, 33, 49, 56, 105, 122
Gross, Charles, Introduction to Select Coroner's Rolls, Selden
Society Series, Vol. 9 5, 7, 9, 10, n, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
32, 33 34, 37, 46, 52, 82, 84, 104
Gross, Charles, Article By, 7 Political Science Quarterly, 656. . 4, 7, 9
82, 98
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 257
Pages
Hale's Pleas of the Crown, Vol. I 42, 60, 61, 66, 71, 72, 75, 93, 95
96, 124, 127, 129, 131, 132, 133
134. 135, 137
Hale's Pleas of the Crown, Vol. 2 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
29, 3i, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42
46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57
58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68
69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 82, 84
85, 86, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99
101, 107, 108, 109, no, 123, 124
125, 126, 129, 131, 133, 135, 142
143, 223, 240
Hale's Summary 17, 28, 54, 57, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 75, 82
83, 89, 124, 133, 135, 136, 139
Hansard, Vol. 230 33
Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, Vol. i 57, 62, 89, 170
Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, Vol. 2 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
34, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
5i, 53, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64
65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 73, 75, 76
82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 93, 104
126, 127, 129, 131, 133, 136
137, 170, 224
Hovenden, Vol. 3 10
Hubert's Manuel de Lois 3
Irish Law Times, Vol. 19 23, 24
Jervis on Coroners II, 18, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 42, 45, 47, 48, 60
61, 70, 71, 72, 73, 83, 84, 85, 92, 98, 100, 101, 102
103, 108, no, 112, 114, 116, 121, 123, 125, 126
127, 132, 134, 135, 139, 142, 177, 178, 214
Judicial Review, Article by R. W. Renton, Vol. 5 4
Justices of the Peace (English), Vol. 4 36, 99, 122, 127
Lamb, Eiren 83, 85
Law Magazine and Review, Vol. 12 65
Law Times, Vol. 78 67
Legis Anglo Saxonicae (Wilkins) u, 13, 14
Liber Albus 32
Liber Cust 32
Lilly's Entries 140
Lofties London 32
Maine's Ancient Law 4
Maitland's Article English Historical Review, Vol. 8 10, 12
Maitland's Gloucester Pleas 1 9, 33, 49, 56, 105, 122
Maitland's Manor Pleas : 14
Mandeville Geoffrey de (Round) 11, 12
Memorials of Ripon, Vol. I 34
Mirror, Book I. . . . 7, 8, 9, 34, 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 66, 67, 68, 70, 73, 83
85, 86, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101
Monasticon Anglicae (Dugdale), Vol. 4 8, n
258 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Pages
Northumberland Rolls 33. 34- 46, 58, 61
Palgrave's Commonwealth 122
Peake on Evidence 117, 212
Pennsylvania Marriages 146
Phillips and Arnold on Evidence 115, 117, 212
Pipe Roll of Henry I 11
Placita de Quo Warranto 15, 33
Pleas of Gloucester 19, 33, 49, 56, 105, 122
Poltical Science Quarterly Article by Charles Gross, Vol. 7 . . 4,7,9, 82
98
Pollock's Oxford Lectures 14, 16
Pollock and Maitland's History of the English Law 12
Pulling's Laws of London 32
Rastell's Entries 71, 73
Register 20, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. 52, 53, 82
Reiley's Memorials 32
Renton, R. W., Article by, 5 Judicial Review, 167 4
Report of the Judges, 3 Binney, 599, etc. (1808) 5, 158, 162, 169
187, 203, 223
Ripon, Memorials of, Vol. I 34
Robert's Digest 5
Rogers' Documents 101
Rolles Gascons (Ed Michel) 49
Rolle's Abridgment, Vol. 2 28, 62, 71, 72, 88, 129, 170
Rotuli Claus, Vol. I and Vol. 2 33, 45, 52
Rotuli Curiae Regis, Vol. I 9, 56
Rotuli Hundredas, Vol. I 33, 34
Rotuli Hundredas, Vol. 2 34
Rotuli Parliament, Vol. i '. 45, 87
Rotuli Parliament, Vol. 2 47, 49
Rotuli Parliament, Vols. 3 & 4 22
Rotuli Willelmy Skillett 34
Round's Geoffrey de Mandeville n, 12
Rymer's Foedera, Vol. i 12
Selden's Charters 7, 33
Selden's Pleas 16, 19, 56
Selden Society Series, Vol. 2 35
Selden Society Series, Vol. 4 17, 18, 33, 56
Selden Society Series, Vol. 6 33
Selden Society Series Vol. 9 (Select
Coroner's Rolls) 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, n, 12, 13, 14, 15
16, 17, 18, 32, 33, 34, 37, 45, 46
52, 56, 74, 82, 85, 95, 96, 98, ioi
102, 104, 106
Selden Society Series, Vol. 9 (Select Coroner's Rolls), Intro-
duction by Charles Gross 5, 7, 9, 10, n, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
18, 32, 33, 34, 37, 46, 82, 84, 104
Select Coroner's Rolls: See Selden Society Series, Vol. 9.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 259
Pages
Staundeford's Pleas of the Crotrn 7, 17, 18, 20, 27, 28, 32, 34, 42, 44
45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54
55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67
68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 82, 83, 84, 86
87, 89, 93, 95, 96, 97, 124, 126, 131
133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 142,
143, 223
Stephens' Criminal Law 7, 37
Stephens' Digest of Criminal Procedure 63, 67, 99, 102, 121
Stubbs' Constitutional History 7, 14, 15
Tremain's Pleas of the Crown 124
Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris 3, 13, 14, 18, 25, 29, 54, 56, 60, 64
74, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 98, 101
107, 108, 116, 123, 125, 136, 139, 140
144, 177
Viner's Abridgment, Vol. 6 7, 8, 17, 21, 42, 55, 59, 63, 66, 76, 93
no, 135
Wallingford's Historical Mss 101
Watson's Sheriff 71
Wellington's The King's Coroner 9, 208
Western Law Journal, Vol. 2 1 16
Wilkins' Legis Anglo Saxonicae n, 13, 14
Wood's Institutes 70
Words and Phrases, Vol. 8 192
TABLE OF ENGLISH STATUTES.
(References are to Pages.)
Pages
Charter of Liberties of Henry III, c. 36 86
Magna Charta 13, 16, 18
Statute of Exeter 84
Statute of Malbridge, i Statutes of the
Realm, 25 (1267) 98, 113, 114 115, 116, 117, 118
119, 120, 124
Statute of Merton, i Statutes of the Realm, I (1235) 46
Statute of Oxford 50
Westminster I, c. 10, I Statutes of the
Realm, 26 (1275) 37, 39, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 82, 87
Westminster I, c. 26, i Statutes of the Realm, 26 (1275) 50
3 Edward I 75
4 Edward I, i Statutes of the Realm,
40 (1275) 15, 18, 28, 32, 36, 37, 42, 50, 54
55, 57, 58, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 85
86, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94 95, 96
100, 107, 121, 123, 126, 127, 128
157, 169, 183, 186, 187, 208, 213
12 Edward I, 509, i Statutes of the Realm, 59 (1284) 74
14 Edward II, ch. I (de Militibus), i Statutes of the Realm, 229
(1320) 47
14 Edward III, Statute I, c. 8, I Statutes of the Realm, 283
(1340) 46, 47
28 Edward III, c. 6, I Statutes of the Realm, 346
(1354) 31, 33, 44, 45, 48, 131
14 Edward III, Statute 2 47
34 Edward III, c. 13, i Statutes of the Realm, 368 (1360) 114, 131
13 Richard II, c. 3, 2 Statutes of the Realm, 62 (1389) 23
15 Richard II, 2 Statutes of the Realm, 78 (1391) 22, 28
2 Henry IV, c. 9, 2 Statutes of the Realm, 123 (1400) 99
36 Henry VI, c. 16 1 14
i Richard III, c. 3, 2 Statutes of the Realm, 478 (1483) 42, 43, 96
I Henry VII, c. 7 87
3 Henry VII, c. I, 2 Statutes of the
Realm, 511 (1487) SO, 60, 75, 76, 82, 87, 89, 90, 94
95, 124, 127, 157, 186, 194, 200
2OI, 202, 2O3, 2O5, 221
i Henry VIII, c. 7, 3 Statutes of the Realm, 4 (1509).. 75, 76, 87, 114
22 Henry VIII, c. 7, 3 Statutes of the Realm, 324 (1530) 74
28 Henry VIII, c. 15, 3 Statutes of the Realm, 671 (1536) ... 27, 31, 125
32 Henry VIII, c. 30, 3 Statutes of the Realm, 786 (1540) 142
33 Henry VIII, c. 12, 3 Statutes of the Realm,
845 (i54i) 23, 26, 27, 31, 124, 125, 142
(260)
TABLE OF ENGLISH STATUTES 261
Pages
35 Henry VIII, 3 Statutes of the Realm, 893 (1542) 31
1 & 2 Phillip and Mary, c. 13, 4 Statutes of the Realm, Part 2,
250 (i554) 75, 9i, 109, no, 124, 137, 165, 223
2 & 3 Phillip and Mary, c. 10, 4 Statutes of the Realm, Part 2,
286 (I5SS) 137
2 & 3 Edward VI, c. 24, 2, 4 Statutes of the Realm, 69 (1548) . .36, 162
21 James I, c. 25, 4 Statutes of the Realm, 1233 (1623) 74
25 George II, c. 20, 20 Statutes at Large (Eng.), 235 52, 75
7 George IV, c. 64, 4 117
6 & 7 Victoria, c. 83, 2 . . . JQI
TABLE OF ACTS OF ASSEMBLY.
(References are to Pages.)
Pages
Frame of Government of 1682, Poore's Federal and State Consti-
tutions, 1522 146
Frame of Government of 1683, Duke of York's Book of Laws, 159. 154
Charter of Privileges, Poore's Federal and State Constitutions,
1536 147, 154
Constitution of 1776, Poore's Federal and State Constitutions,
1540 148, 154
Constitution of 1790, Poore's Federal and State Constitutions,
1548 148, 154
Constitution of 1838, Poore's Federal and State Constitutions,
1557 149, 154
Constitution of 1874, Art. V 171, 247
Constitution of 1874, Art. XIV, I Purdon's Digest, 202 149, 154, 168
Constitution of 1874, Art. XVI, I Purdon's Digest, 203 174
Constitution of 1874, 2 Schedule, i Purdon's Digest, 218 149
Amendment of 1909, Art. XIV, 5 Purdon's Digest, 5197 149, 154
1682, Laws of the Province, 148 235
i March, 1683, Duke of York's Book of Laws, 48 235
15 March, 1693, Duke of York's Book of Laws, 235 235
27 November, 1700, 2 Statutes at Large, 138 150, 235
12 January, 1705-6, 2 Statutes at Large, 218 157
12 January, 1705-6, 2 Statutes at Large, 272 146, 147, 150, 231
28 February, 1710-11, 2 Statutes at Large, 314 156
28 February, 1710-11, 2 Statutes at Large, 348 235
28 February, 1710-11, 2 Statutes at Large, 355 150
28 May, 1715, 3 Statutes at Large, 39 150
28 May, 1715, 3 Statutes at Large, 111-2 235
24 August, 1717, 3 Statutes at Large, 138 147
22 May, 1722, 3 Statutes at Large, 307 231
30 March, 1722-3, 3 Statutes at Large, 372-8 235
20 March, 1724-5, 4 Statutes at Large, 19 147
27 January, 1749-50, 5 Statutes at Large, gj 147
ii March, 1752, 5 Statutes at Large, 138 147
ii March, 1752, 5 Statutes at Large, 154-7 157
22 August, 1752, 5 Statutes at Large, 166 235, 236
3 September, 1776, 9 Statutes at Large, 17 147
20 December, 1776, 9 Statutes at Large, 158 157
26 March, 1778, 9 Statutes at Large, 229 236
16 March, 1779, 9 Statutes at Large, 320 165, 236
27 November, 1779, 10 Statutes at Large, 39 237
28 February, 1780, 10 Statutes at Large, 57 156
i March, 1780, 10 Statutes at Large, 78 156
(262)
TABLE OF ACTS OF ASSEMBLY 263
Pages
28 March, 1781, 10 Statutes at Large, 278 147
3 April, 1791, 14 Statutes at Large, no 156
28 March, 1803, P. L. 497, 4 Sm. L. 48 151, 152, 231
28 March, 1814, P. L. 233 234, 243, 244
29 March, 1819, 7 Sm. L. 219 161
22 February, 1821, 7 Sm. L. 377 243
31 January, 1833, P. L. 21 243
14 April, 1834, P. L. 364 232
14 April, 1834, P. L. 366 243
15 April, 1834, P- L. 547 150, 151, 152, 237
16 June, 1836, P. L. 724 233
27 May, 1841, P. L. 404 167, 239
5 April, 1842, P. L. 235 155
16 April, 1845, P. L. 539 192, 196, 247, 248
24 March, 1846, P. L. 165 155
8 February, 1848, P. L. 29 242
22 April, 1850, P. L. 553 233
3 April, 1852, P. L. 246 171
15 April, 1853, P., L. 453 242
8 March, 1855, P. L. 64 196
2 April, 1856, P. L. 219 242, 243
12 April, 1856, P. L. 324 247
19 April, 1856, P. L. 470 172
14 March, 1857, P. L. 88 242
16 May, 1857, P. L. 536 177
14 March, 1860, P. L. 167 242
26 March, 1860, P. L. 278 243
3 April, 1860, P. L. 650 153
i May, 1860, P. L. 437 243
1 May, 1861, P. L. 560 172
ir April, 1862, P. L. 437 154
14 February, 1863, P. L. 30 172
27 February, 1863, P. L. 82 242
17 March, 1864, P. L. 21 ... 172
18 March, 1864, P. L. 60 243
30 January, 1866, P. L. 6 ... 172
30 March, 1866, P. L. 391 192, 195, 196, 227
11 April, 1866, P L. 603 243
9 March, 1867, P. L. 382 236
12 March, 1867, P. L. 404 196
22 March, 1867, P. L. 532 1/2, 192, 196, 248
2 April, 1867, P. L. 676 243
2 April, 1867, P. L. 677 242
21 March, 1868, P. L. 412 ... 236
26 March, 1868, P. L. 495 ... 236
i April, 1868, P. L. 544 ... 236
13 April, 1868, P. L. 948 . . 153
5 February, 1869, P. L. 118 . .243
18 March, 1869, P. L. 404. ... 192, 195 248
17 April, 1869, P. L. 1119 236
264 TABLE OF ACTS OF ASSEMBLY
Pages
xo February, 1870, P. L. 123 243
23 February, 1870, P. L. 226 236
31 March, 1870, P. L. 695 236
18 February, 1871, P. L. 106 236
24 March, 1871, P. L. 450 195
28 June, 1871, P. L. 1380 172, 243
6 March, 1872, P. L. 209 248
9 March, 1872, P. L. 294 195
11 May, 1872, P. L. 755 243
28 February, 1873, P. L. 37 243
21 March, 1873, P. L. 348 172
10 April, 1873, P. L. 708 242
15 May, 1874, P. L. 205 155
31 March, 1876, P. L. 13 248
12 June, 1878, P. L. 188 244
11 June, 1879, P. L. 147 243
8 June, 1881, P. L. 81 154
9 May, 1889, P- L. 162 172, 245, 247
2 June, 1891, P. L. 202 226, 227
15 May, 1893, P. L. 72 227, 228
6 June, 1893, P- L. 330 174, 245, 247
12 June, 1893, P. L. 457 229
2 July, 1895, P. L. 424 248
30 March, 1897, P. L. 8 164, 165, 188, 239, 246, 247
1 1 June, 1897, P. L. 147 243
21 March, 1899, P. L. 12 247, 248
18 April, 1899, P. L. 52 229, 230
10 July, 1901, P. L. 641 248
I May, 1905, P. L. 330 164, 196
16 April, 1907, P. L. 92 157, 158, 164, 187, 192, 195, 197, 203, 230, 249
I June, 1911, P. L. 556 247
8 June, 1911, P. L. 717 229
9 June, 1911, P. L. 756 227
TABLE OF CASES.
(References are to Pages.)
Pages
Aldenham ats. Rex, 2 Levinz, 152, s. c. sub nom Anonymous, i Ven-
tris, 278, sub nom Rex v. Alderman Freeman, 419, 3 Keble, 564,
566, 604 (1678) 103, 108, 114, 125, 129, 133, 134, 135, 178
Allegheny County v. McClung, 53 Pa. St. 482 (1866).. 158, 162, 187, 205
Allegheny County v. Shaw, 34 Pa. St. 301, s. c. 7 P. L.
J. 217, 12 W. N. C. 312, 14 Lane. Bar 101, 39 Leg.
Int. 459 (1859) 159, 191, 209, 241
Allegheny County v. Watts, 3 Pa. St. 462 (1846) . .158, 209, 241, 242, 244
Allen ats. Commonwealth, 30 Pa. St. 49 (1858) 153
Ameridith's Case, 9 Coke's Reports, 29 b (1598) 31, 136
Anonymous, 3 Atkins, 184 (1744) 44, 51, 52, 53
Anonymous, Comberback, 70 (1683) 126, 128
Anonymous, Comberback, 435 ( 1698) 142, 143
Anonymous, Dalliston, 15 pi. 7 ( 1553) 46
Anonymous, Dalliston, 32 pi. 19 (1561) 95
Anonymous, Dyer, 238, pi. 36 (1565) 95, 134, 135, 136
Anonymous, Godbolt, 105, pi. 123 ( 1586) 50
Anonymous, Jenkins, 202, pi. 24 (1546) 94
Anonymous, Jenkins, 177, pi. 54 ( 1489) 95
Anonymous, 2 Lord Raymond, 1305 (1710) 97, 124, 126, 127
Anonymous, 7 Modern, 10 (1702) 61, 183
Anonymous, i Ventris, 278, sub nom Rex v. Alden-
ham, 2 Levinz, 152, Freeman, 419, 3 Keble, 564,
566, 604 (1678) 103, 108, 114, 129
132, 133, 134, 135
178
Anonymous, 12 Modern, 112 (1697) 126, 222
Anonymous, Moore, 29, pi. 95 (1560) 95
Anonymous, Moore, 819-2 28
Anonymous, Noy, 113 (1605) 71, 73
Anonymous, Pettys Mss. Fragment from 3 Edward III 135
Anonymous, No. 117, Dec. Sessions, 1883, Q. S. Fayette Co 199, 247
Anonymous, I Strange, 533 (1723) 62, 96, 97, 129
Anonymous, I Ventris, 239 (1673) 132, 133. 134
Anonymous, I Ventris, 352 (1680) . .62, 89, 90, 126, 128, 129, 133, 134, 170
Anonymous, 2 Ventris, 216 ( 1620) 141
Anonymous, Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris, 233 (1553) 141* 239
Appleman's Case, 7 Jurist, 201 (1909) 190
Approval of Coroner's Inquest, 7 Dist. 566, s. c. 20 P. C. C. R. 660,
2 Docket, 65 (1896) ... .168, 169, 183, 189, 190, 198, 199, 202, 206, 226
227, 228
Arnold's Case, 4 Pa. J. L. R. 49 (1905) 158, 160, 161, 168, 183, 186
199, 203, 205, 206
(265)
266 TABLE OF CASES
Pages
Assize, 12, p. 19-29 136, 137
Assize, 17, P- S 1 7, 7<>, 83
Assize, 22, p. 76 135
Assize, 22, p. 93 18
Assize, 22, p. 94 91, 93, 123, 127, 221
Assize, 22, pp. 97-98 17, 18, 68, 70
Assize, 23, p. 7 18, 47
Assize, 27, p. 47 70, 72, 86, 139, 231
Assize, 27, p. 55 64, 65, 66, 89, 170
Assize, 31, p. 20 142, 143
Assize, 37, p. 13 131
Assize, 37, p. 13 131
Atkinson ats. Rex, 12 Modern, 496 (1702) 125, 129, 130
Aurlstone's Case, Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium, 144 129, 250
Bain ats. Wells, 75 Pa. St. 39 (1874) 149
Baker ats. Floyd, 12 Coke's Reports, 23 (1608) 119
Barber ats. Clerk, 2 Law Times, N. S. 61 244
Batton ats. Fayette Co. 108 Pa. St. 594 (1885) 180, 188, 190, 191, 197
199, 234, 238, 247
Beaver County ats. Watson, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 495, s. c. 27, W. N. C.
469 (1891) 158, 160, 180, 189, 198, 199, 202, 206, 239
Bender's Case, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 664 (1890) 159, 168, 181, 182, 189, 198
Berkley's Case, 2 Siderfen, 90-101-144 (1658) 21, 62, 96, 97, 100
108, in, 127, 133
Berkshire's Case, Palmer, 252 (1623) 127
Bleiler v. Muldoon, 16 Pa. Superior Court, 553 (1901; 248
Bond ats. Rex, i Strange, 22 (1717) 61, 62, 96, 97, 129
Borough & Holcroft's Case, 2 Leonard, 160 (1579) 24, 25, 47, 48
Brooker ats. Gregory, Croke's Elizabeth, 586 (1598) 141, 232
Brownfield v. Commonwealth, 13 S. & R. 265 (1825) 151
Brunswick ats. Rex, 2 Keble, 19, s. c. sub nom Brunswick's Case,
i Levinz, 180 (1666) 115, 117, 137
Buck's County Coroner's Inquisition, 17 Pa. C. C. R. 553 (1894)... 244
Buckhurst's Case, i Keble, 278 (1662) 61, 63, 75, 76, 124, 165
Buckler's Case, Dyer, 69 (1552) 126
Bunney ats. Rex, i Salkeld, 190, 2 Saunders, 291,
Carthew, 72 61, 89, 93, 97, 107, 108
114, 125, 126, 128, 129
135, 137
Burleigh ats. Leigh, Owen, 122 (1610) 28, 29, 116
Burnett v. Lackawanna County, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 95, s. c. i Lack.
Jur. 410 (1890) 158, 163, 183, 195, 209, 214, 235, 239, 243
Burns' Case, 5 Pa. C. C. R. 549 (1888) .. .122, 158, 167, 181, 183, 184, 188
190, 193, 198, 200, 201, 204, 221
238
Cambria County ats. Miller, 29 Pa. Su-
perior Ct. 166 (1905) 159, 181, 182, 190, 191, 193, 238
Campbell ats. Commonwealth, 8 S. & R. 417 (1822) 153
Candith ats. Sairbl, Yelverton 214 ( 1612) 141, 232
Carmack ats. Commonwealth, 5 Binney, 188 (1812) 153
TABLE OF CASES 267
Pages
Carson v. Forrest County, 14 Dist. 818, s. c. 9 Del. Co. 49, 3 Pa.
J. L. R. 262 (1905) 244
Causey ats. Rex, Mss. 2 Bacon's Abridgment, 429 (1717) 62
Chambers ats. Troutman, 9 Dist. 533 (1900).. 163, 172, 186, 239, 240, 245
Chester Counts ats. Hopkins, i Chester Co.
481 (1878) 183, 189, 191, 199, 210, 211
Chester County ats. McFadgen, 10 Pa. C. C. R. 124, s. c. 7 Mont.
149 (1891) 5, 157, 158, 159, 160, 180, 183^ 184, 185, 187, 188
189, 190, 191, 197, 198, 204, 207, 208, 209, 237
238, 239
Chester County ats. Rambo, i Chester
Co. 414-416 ( 1878) 183, 189, 191, 199, 243, 244, 247
Christman ats. Commonwealth, 17 S. & R. 381 (1828) 153
Churston ats. Thomas, 2 Best & Smith, 475, s. c. 8 Jurist (N. S.),
795 (1862) 119
City of London's Case, 8 Coke's Reports, I2ia (1610) 31, 70, 72
Clark ats. Taylor, 3 Levinz, 399 (1695) 142, 143
Clecott v. Dennys, Croke's Elizabeth, 67 (1588) 84, 143
Clerk v. Barber, 2 Law Times, N. S. 61 244
Clerk ats. Regina, i Salkeld, 377, s. c. Holt,
167, pi. 3 (1702) 58, 61, 62 75, 93, 96, 97, 109
125, 126, 127, 130, 135
Cobat's Case, Mss. i Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 161, note 99
Cochrane's Case, 12 Dist. 477, s. c. 27 Pa. C. C. R. 282, 2 Pa. J. L.
R. 27 (1903) 159, 167, 168, 184, 188, 189, 190, 191, 198
199, 201, 202, 206, 227
Coleridge ats. Cox, i B. & C. 37, 2 D. & R. 86 (1822) in, 113. 214
Colmer ats. Regina, 9 Cox C. C. 506 (1864) n6
Commonwealth v. Allen, 30 Pa. St. 49 (1858) 153
Commonwealth ats. Brownfield, 13 S. & R. 265 (1825; 151
Commonwealth ats. Campbell, 8 S. & R. 417 (1822) 153
Commonwealth ats. Carmack, 5 Binney, 188 (1812) 153
Commonwealth ats. Christman, 17 S. & R. 381 (1828) 153
Commonwealth v. Center, 21 Pa. St. 266 (1853) 153
Commonwealth v. Dauphin County Commissioners, 23 Pa. C. C. R.
646, s. c. sub nom Commonwealth v. Smith, 9 Dist. 350, 3 Dau-
phin, 159, 7 North, 255, 6 Lack. L. N. 151 (1901) 174
Commonwealth ats. Dunn, 14 S. & R. 431 (1826)... . 152
Commonwealth v. Grether, 204 Pa. St. 203 (1902).. .... 210
Commonwealth v. Grier, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 444 (1891 > 172, 174
Commonwealth v. Harmon, 4 Pa. St. 269 (1846) 188, 191, 104, 241
Commonwealth v. Higgins. 3 Kulp, 269 (1889) ... .157, 158, 161, 186, 187
190, 213, 238, 241
Commonwealth v. Lelar, 5 Clark, 167 (1852)..
Commonwealth ats. Lynch, 16 S. & R. 368 (1827;..
Commonwealth v. McClay, 8 Watts, 153 (1839)
Commonwealth a*. McMichen, 58 Pa. St. 213 (1868;..
Commonwealth v. Norris, 13 Kulp's Luz. Leg. Reg. I, s. c. 15 Dist.
821 (1905) 227 ' 2
Commonwealth v. Rainey, 4 W. & S. 146 (1842 .
268 TABLE OF CASES
Pages
Commonwealth ats. Snyder, 3 P. & W. 286 (1831) 153
Commonwealth ats. Sprang, 12 Pa. St. 358 (1849) 152
Commonwealth v. Springer, 13 W. N. C. 305 ( 1883) 153
Commonwealth v. Wilson, 7 W. & S. 181 (1844) 153
Commonwealth ats. Wolverton, 7 S. & R. 273 (1821) 153
Commonwealth v. Young, 4 Binney, 113 (1811), s. c. 6 Binney, 88
(1602) 141, 232
Center ats. Commonwealth, 21 Pa. St. 266 (1853) 153
Cook, In re, 7 Q. B. 653 (1872) 120
Corne v. Pastow, Yelverton, 15, s. c. Croke's Elizabeth, 894
( 1602) 141, 232
Corwallis ats. Hoyle, I Strange, 387 (1719) 144
Coroner's Case, Jenkins' Century Cases, 90 pi. 74 (1454) 53, 84
Coroner's Case, n Phila. 387, 32 Leg. Int. 142. 7 Leg. Gaz. 125
(1875) 157, 158, 160, 161, 167, 187, 199, 202
Coroner's Duties, 20 Dist. 502 (1911) 157, 220
Coroner's Inquests, I Pa. C. C. R. 14, s. c. 3 Kulp, 451, 2 Del. Co.
446. 3 Lane. L. R. 70 (1885) 159, 169. 170, 183, 189, 190, 191, 197
198, 199, 203, 204, 206, 211, 222
240, 241
Coroner's Inquests, i Pa. C. C. R. 667, 2 Del. Co. 475, 3 Kulp, 451
(1885) 169, 221, 241, 243, 244
Coroner's Inquest, 28 Pa. C. C. R. 428 (1903) 167, 168, 169, 180, 183
188, 190, 191, 193, 198
200, 20 1, 204, 237, 240
242
Coroner of Montgomery's Case, Noy, 87 (1625) 89
Coroner ats. Rex, Comberback, 2 (1686) 131
Coulson ats. Weston, i Wm. Blackstone's Rep. 506 (1763) 139, 231
Cox v. Coleridge, i B. & C. 37, 2 D. & R. 86 (1822) 111, 113, 214
Crosby's Inquest, 19 P. L. J. 192, 3 Pitts. 425 (1872) 204, 221, 222
Cross ats. Rex, i Keble, 744, i Siderfen, 204, I
Keble, 723, Popham, 210 (1664) 94, 100, 126, 127, 129
Dalton ate. Rex, 2 Strange, 911 (1722) 109, 132
Dauphin Co. Commissioners ats. Commonwealth, 23 Pa. C. C. R.
646, s. c. sub nont Commonwealth v. Smith, 9 Dist. 350, 3 Dau-
phin, 159, 7 North, 255, 6 Lack. L. N. 151 (1901) 174
Day ats. Luzerne County, 23 Pa. St. 141 (1854) 242
Dearings' Case, Croke's Elizabeth, 193, pi. 7 (1590) 84, 125
Dennys ats. Clecott, Croke's Elizabeth, 67 (1588) 84, 143
Dern ats. Lancaster County, 2 Grant,
262 (1852) 5, 160, 180, 187, 188, 189, 191
192, 193, 195, 205, 209, 225
Dolby ats. Rex, Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris, 144 142
Dunn v. Commonwealth, 14 S. & R. 431 (1826) 152
Earl of Berkshires' Case, Palmer, 252 (1623) 127
Eckard v. Fayette County, 5 Dist. 371, s. c. 43 Pa. L. J. 461
(1806) .- 172, 245
Edwards v. Gimbel, 202, Pa. St. 30 (1902) 158, 213, 223, 225
TABLE OF CASES 269
Erie Co. ats. Pickett, 19 W. N. C. 60, s. c. 4 Pa.
C. C. R. 23 (1887) S, 36, 158, 162, 166, 167
169, 198, 209, 211, 234
237, 239, 241, 242, 244
Erie County Coroner's Case, i Dist. 244, s. c. u Pa. C. C. R. 136
(1892) 155
Eriswell ats. Rex, 3 Term Reports, 713 (1790) 113, 117
Etherington ats. Toombes, I Levinz, 120 (1663) 34, 46
Evans' Inquest, 4 C. P. 89 (1887) 228
Fayette County Coroners' Inquest, 30 Pa. C. C. R. 321, 35 P. L. J.
265, 9 Del. Co. 431 (1904) 159, 189, 191, 199, 222, 224
Fayette County Coroner's Return, 24 Pa. C.
C. R. 498 (1900) 158, 159, 163, 182, 184, 188
189, I9O, 191, 198, 206, 221
222, 238, 240, 241
Fayette County Deputy Coroner's Case, 20 Pa. C. C. R. 641, s. c. 7
Dist. 568/46 P. L. J. 2 (1898) 157, 163, 172, 174, 186, 240, 245
Fayette County v. Batton, 108 Pa. St. 594 (1885) ..180, 188, 190, 191, 197
199, 234, 238, 247
Fayette County ats. Eckard, 5 Dist. 371, s. c. 43 P. L. J. 461
(1896) 172, 245
Ferrand ats. Garnett, 6 Barn. & Cress, 6n s. c. 6 Dowl. & Ry. 657
(1826) 116, 119, 120,213
Ferrand ats. Regina, 2 Barnwell & Alderson, 260 101, no
Floyd v. Baker, 12 Coke's Reports, 23 ( 1608) 119
Fogarty v. Schuylkill County, 13 Pa. C. C. R. 454 (1893) 172, 245
Forrest County ats. Carson, 14 Dist. 818, s. c. 9 Del. Co. 49, 3 Pa.
J. L. R. 262 (1905) 244
Foxley's Case, 5 Coke's Reports, no (1601) 28, 62, 89, 135, 136
Francis v. Tioga County, 8 Pa. C. C. R. 163 (1889) 247
Frenche's Case, 2 Leonard, 200 (1587) 70
Fricker's Appeal, i Watts, 393 (1833) 152
Garnett v. Ferrand, 6 Barn & Cress, 6n, s. c. 6 Dowl & Ry. 657
(1826) 116, 119, 120, 213
Gilbert ats. Phila., 14 Phila. 212, s. c. 37 Leg. Int. 376 (1880) 248
Gimbel ats. Edwards, 202 Pa. St. 30 (1002) 158, 213, 223, 225
Great Western ats. Regina, 43 E. C L. R. 759 (1842) 183, 184
Gregory v. Brooker, Croke's Elizabeth, 586 (1598) 141, 232
Grether ats. Commonwealth, 204 Pa. St. 203 (1002) 210
Greton's Case, Freeman, 433, pi. 608 134
Grier ats. Commonwealth, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 444 (1891) 172, 174
Griesley's Case, 8 Coke's Reports, 41 (i598) 49, SO, 5*
Grieve's Case, Mss. I Male's Pleas of the Crown, 414, 2 Kale's
Pleas of the Crown, 59 76, 137
Groves' Case, 26 Pa. C. C. R. 449 O90O) 172, 186, 240, 245, 249
Grubbs' Case, 3 Pa. J. L. R. 78 (1904) ---iSS, 169, 180, 183, 187, 202, 221
Kale's Case, Allen, 51 (1648) 96
Hamlin's Case, King's Bench, 1610 25
Hammond v. Howell, I Modern, 184 (1675) "4, "9
Harmon ats. Commonwealth, 4 Pa. St. 269 (1846) .. .188, 191, 194. 241
270 TABLE OF CASES
Pages
Harrison ats. Rex, I Siderfen, 255-259 (1666) 127, 128, 129, 130
Heathershall ats. Rex, 3 Modern, 80
(1685) 97, 108, 114, 125, 128, 129,131
135, 224
Heaton ats. Rex, 2 Term Reports, 184 (1787) 133
Herford ats. Regina, 3 Ellis & Ellis, 115, s. c. 6 Jurist (N. S.) 750,
20 L. J. Q. B. 249 (1860) 67
Higgins ats. Commonwealth, 3 Kulp, 269 (1889).. 157, 158, 161, 186, 187
190, 213, 238, 241
Holme's Case, Coke's Entries, 353!} 109
Hopkins v. Chester County, i Chester County, 481 (1878).. 183, 189, 191
199, 210, 2ii
Howarth's Case, 2 Luzerne L. R. 119 (1873) I95
Howell ats. Hammond, I Modern, 184 (1675) 114, H9
Hoyle v. Lord Cornwallis, i Strange, 387 (1719) 144
Humphries ats. Palmer, Croke's Elizabeth, 583, pi. 13 (1598) 131
Ingham ats. Regina, 5 Best & Smith, 257 (1864) 101
Innes ats. Northampton County, 26 Pa. St. 156 (1856) 188, 191, 198
211,237, 241
Jack ats. Schafer, 14 S. & R. 426 (1826) 153
Jones' Case, i Pa. C. C. R. 19 (1884) 180, 183, 189, 190, 191, 193
197, 198, 199, 204, 221, 227
Justices of Kent ats. Rex, n East, 228 (1809) 87, 91, 159, 189, 190
237, 238, 250
Killinghall ats. Rex, i Burroughs, 17 (1756) 114, 115
King v. Aldenham, 3 Keble, 564, 566, 604, s. c. Freeman, 419, 2
Levinz, 152, s. c. sub nom Anonymous, I Ventris, 278
(1678) 103, 108, 114, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 178
King v. Atkinson, 12 Modern, 496 (1702) 125, 129, 130
King v. Bond, i Strange, 22 (1717) 61, 62, 96, 97. 129
King v. Brunswick, 2 Keble, 19 s. c. sub nom Brunswick's Case, i
Levinz, 180 (1666) 115, 117, 137
King v. Bunney, i Salkeld, 190, 2 Sanders, 291,
Carthew, 72 61, 89, 93, 97, 107, 108
114, 125, 126, 128, 129
135, 137
King v. Causey, Mss. 2 Bacon's Abridgment, 429 (1717) 62
King v. Coroner, Comberback, 2 (1686) 131
King v. Cross, i Keble, 744, I Siderfen, 204, I
Keble, 723, Popham, 210 (1664) 94, 100, 126, 127, 129
King v. Dalton, 2 Strange, 911 (1722) 109, 132
King v. Dolby, Umfreville's Lex Coronatoris, 144 142
King v. Eriswell, 3 Term Reports, 713 (1790) 113, 117
King v. Harrison, i Siderfen, 255-259 (1666) 127, 128, 129, 130
King v. Heathershall, 3 Modern, 80 (1685) 97, 108, 114, 125, 128
129, 131, 135, 224
King v. Heaton, 2 Term Reports, 184 (1787) 133
King v. Justices of Kent, n East, 228 (1809) 87, 91, 159, 189, 190
237, 238, 250
TABLE OF CASES 271
Pages
King v. Killinghall, i Burroughs, 17 (1756) ii 4> 115
King v. Macauley, 9 Coke's Reports, 666 ( 1612) .' 93
King v. Magrath, 2 Strange, 1242 (1746) 109, 132
King v. Paine, i Lord Raymond, 729, s. c. i Salkeld, 281 (1692)... 137
King v. Parker, 2 Levinz, 141, 3 Keble, 489 (1675).. 61, 62, 89, 125, 126
129, 130, 132, 133
134, 135, 136
King v. Phillips, I Strange, 261 (1720) 126, 129
King v. Purefoy, Maidstone Summer Assize, 1794 117
King v. Ripley, Skinner, 45, pi. 16, s. c. 2 Jones, 198, 2
Shower, 190 (1680) 108, 125, 128, 129
130, 133, 134, 135
King v. Roupel, Cowper, 458 (1776) 133
King v. Saunders, i Strange, 167 (1719) 62, 97, 129
King v. Scorey, i Leach, 43 (1749) 75, 107, 108, 109, 116, 214
King v. Solgard, Andrews, 231, s. c. 2 Strange, 1097
(1738) 61, 92, 116, 129
King v. Solway, 3 Modern, 100, pi. 61 (1686) 108, 126, 128, 129, 130
King v. Stanlake, 2 Keble, 859 (1671) 128, 133
King v. Storke, 2 Keble, 800 (1679) 128, 129, 133, 134
King v. Stukeley, Holt, 167, s. c. 12 Modern, 493 (1701) 61, 103, 108
King v. Sutton, 2 Strange, 1073 (1737) 124, 129
King v. Thomas, Leigh v. Cave, 313 (1863) 67
King v. Wakefield, I Strange, 69 (1718) 75, 108, 129, 130
King v. Warrington, i Salkeld, 152 (1692) 129, 140, 143, 231, 232
King v. Yaundel, 4 Term Reports, 542 (1792) 72
Lackawanna County ats. Burnett, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 95, s. c. i Lack.
Jur. 410 (1890) 158, 163, 183, 195, 209, 214, 235, 239, 243
Lambe v. Wiseman, Hobart, 70 71, 72
Lancaster County v. Dern, 2 Grant, 252 (1852) 5, 160, 180, 187, 188
189, 191, 192, 193
195. 205, 209, 225
Lancaster County v. Mishler, 100 Pa. St.
624 (1882) 158, 159, 181, 190, 191, 193. 198
199, 221, 224, 225, 237, 241
Langton's Case, Mss., i Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 414 76
Lee's Case, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 474 (1891). ..168, 169, 180, 183, 190, 191, 193
197, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205
206, 237, 238
Leigh v. Burleigh, Owen, 122 (1610) 28, 29, 116
Lelar ats. Commonwealth, 5 Clark, 167 (1852) 153
Lewen's Case, 2 Lewin, C. C. 12 (1834) 123
Lewis's Case, Unreported 178
London, Case of the City of, 8 Coke's Reports, I2ia (1610) . .31, 70, 72
Long's Case, 5 Coke's Reports, I2ob (1605) 126
Lord Buckhurst's Case, I Keble, 278 (1662) 61, 63, 75, 76, 124, 165
Lord Cornwallis ats. Hoyle, I Strange, 387 (1719) 144
Lord Morley's Case, 3 State Trials, 941, Keyl, 56, 7 State Trials,
421 137, 138
Luzerne County v. Day, 23 Pa. St. 141 (1854) 243
272 TABLE OF CASES
Pages
Lynch ats. Commonwealth, 16 S. & R. 368 (1827) 153
McClay ats. Commonwealth, 8 Watts, 153 (1839) 153
McClung ats. Allegheny, 53 Pa. St. 482 (1866) 158, 162, 187, 205
McFadgen v. Chester County, 10 Pa. C. C. R. 124, s. c. 7 Mont.
149 (1891) 5, 157, 158, 159, 160, 180, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188
189, 190, 191, 197, 198, 204, 207, 208, 209, 237
238, 239
McKean ats. Walker, 31 Pa. C. C. R. 664, 15 Dist.
577 (iQOS) 157, 158, 182, 203, 205
206, 220, 241, 242
McKean ats. Winger, n Dist. 555, s. c. 26 Pa. C. C. R. 126, 8 Del.
Co. 431, 18 Mont. 88 (1901) . .180, 182, 186, 189, 190, 191, 198, 201, 206
McKensey's Appropriation, 3 Pa. St. 156 (1846) 152
McMichen ats. Commonwealth, 38 Pa. St. 213 ( 1868) 153
Macauley ats. Rex, 9 Coke's Reports, 666 (1612) 93
Magrath ats. Rex, 2 Strange, 1242 (1746) 109, 132
Marvin Shaft Inquest, 3 Pa. C. C. R. 10 (1887) 157, 158, 169, 188, 189
199, 202, 203, 206, 209
221, 222, 223, 227, 234
240, 241, 243, 244
Metzger's Inquest, 8 Dist. 573 (1899) 163, 166, 167, 169, 180, 181, 184
189, 190, 191, 193, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 2O2, 206, 211, 224, 24O
241
Milbourn's Case, 7 Coke's Reports, 6b (1587) 60
Miller v. Cambria County, 29 Pa. Superior
Ct. 166 (1905) 159, 181, 182, 190, 191, 193, 238
Miller ats. Smith, 13 S. & R. 339 (1825) iS3
Mishler ats. Lancaster, 100 Pa. St. 624 (1882) 158, 159, 181, 190, 191
193, 198, 199, 221, 224
225, 237, 241
Missimer, in re, 20 Mont. 200, s. c. 3 Pa. J. L. R. 88, 18 York, 115
(1904) 163, 169, 198, 222
Morgan v. Wye, Croke's Elizabeth, 574 (1594) 141. 232
Morley's Case, 3 State Trials, 941, Keyl, 56, 7 State Trials, 421. .137, 138
Morris's Estate, 4 Pa. St. 162 (1846) 152
Muldoon ats. Bleiler, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 553 (1901) 248
Naylor's Case, Freeman, 191 (1675) 143
Nichola ats. Smith, 6 Dist. 595, s. c. 19 Pa. C. C. R. 440 (1897) 2 3i
Norris ats. Commonwealth, 13 Kulp's Luz. Leg. Reg. i, s. c. 15 Dist.
821 (1905) 227, 228
Northampton County v. Innes, 26 Pa. St. 156 (1856) .. .188, 191, 198, 211
237, 241
Northampton County ats. Uhler, i Lehigh Valley,
213 (1886) 158, 159, 161, 188, 189
193, 195, 202, 203, 205
Northampton ats. Weaver, 2 Lehigh Valley, 408
(1887) 158, 160, 180, 190, 205
224, 238, 244
Oiley's Case, Sir Francis, Crokes', James, 635, pi. 2 (1623) 127
TABLE OF CASES 273
Pages
Paige's Case, 45 Edward III, reported, I Kale's Pleas of the Crown,
4 J 7 133, 134
Paine ate. Rex, I Lord Raymond, 729, s. c. i Salkeld, 281 (1692).. 137
Palmer v. Humphries, Croke's Elizabeth, 584, pi. 13 (1598) 131
Parker ats. Rex, 2 Levinz, 141, 3 Keble,
489 (1675) 61, 62, 89, 125, 126, 129, 130
132, 133, 134, 135, 136
Pastow ats. Corne, Yelverton, 15, s. c. Croke's Elizabeth, 894
(1602) I 4I) 232
Patrick's Case, Croke's James, 528 ( 1620) 72
Petty's Case, Sir John, 2 Keble, 705-733 (1771) 100
Pf out's Case, 7 Pa. C. C. R. 265 (1889) 166, 167, 168, 169, 183, 189
190, 191, 193, 197, 198, 199
20 1, 202, 204, 206, 238
Philadelphia v. Gilbert, 14 Phila. 212, s. c. 37 Leg. Int. 376 (1880). 248
Phillips ats. Rex, i Strange, 261 ( 1720) 126, 129
Pickett v. Erie County, 19 W. N. C. 60, s. c. 4 Pa. C. C. R. 23
(1887) 5, 36, 158, 162, 166, 167, 169, 198, 209, 2ii
234, 237, 239, 241, 242, 244
Pinner's Case, Croke's Elizabeth, 31, pi. 4 (1548).. 84, 125, 126, 127, 223
Ployer ats. Rich, 2 Shower, 286 ( 1683) 140, 143
Plume's Case, Latch, 210, s. c. Palmer, 480 (1628) 73
Potter v. Shields, 200, Pa. St. 241 ( 1901 ) 174
Proctor's Case, Dyer, 222b, 223 (1563) 73, 82, 136
Purefoy ats. Rex, Maidstone Summer Assize, 1794 117
Purnell, ex parte, i Jacobs v. Walker, 431 (1820) 53
Puttenham's Case, Dyer, 3i7a (1572) 72, 82
Queen v. Clerk, i Salkeld, 377, s. c. Holt, 167,
pi. 3 (1702) 58, 61, 62, 75, 93, 96, 97
109, 125, 126, 127, 130, 135
Queen v. Colmer, 9 Cox C. C. 506 ( 1864) 1 16
Queen v. Ferrand, 2 Barnwell & Alderson, 260 101, no
Queen v. Great Western R. R., 43 E. C. L. R. 759 (1842) 183, 184
Queen v. Her ford, 3 Ellis & Ellis, 115, s. c. 6 Jurist (N. S.) 75,
20 L. J. Q. B. 249 (1860) 67
Queen v. Ingham, 5 Best & Smith, 257 (1864) 101
Queen v. Stockdale, 8 Dowl P. C. 516 (1840) 123, 126, 223
Queen v. Thomas, Leigh & Cave, 313 (1863) 67
Rambo v. Chester County, i Chester County, 414-416
(1878) 183, 189, 191, 199
243, 244, 247
Rainey ats. Commonwealth, 4 W. & S. 146 (1842) 152
Ralston's Petition, 9 Dist. 514, s. c. 30 P. L.
J. 410 (1900) 160,180, 181, 223, 224, 225
Regina v. Clerk, i Salkeld, 377, s. c. Holt, 167,
pi. 3 (1702) 58,61,62,75,93,96, 97
109, 125, 126, 127, 130, 135
Regina v. Colmer, 9 Cox C. C. 506 (1864) 116
Regina v. Ferrand, 2 Barnwell & Alderson, 260 tor, no
Regina v. Great Western R. R., 43 E. C. L. R. 759 (1842) 183, 184
274 TABLE OF CASES
Pages
Regina v. Herford, 3 Ellis & Ellis, 115, s. c. 6 Jurist (N. S.) 750,
20 L. J. Q. B. 249 (1860) 67
Regina v. Ingham, 5 Best & Smith, 257 (1864) 101
Regina v. Stockdale, 8 Dowl P. C. 516 (1840) 123, 126, 223
Reitlinger's Case, 2 Kulp, 127 (1882) 166, 167, 169, 224, 238, 239
Reitnauer's Inquest, 14 Pa. C. C. R. 46 (1894) 174, 177
Rentschler v. Schuylkill County, I Schuylkill Legal Record, 289
(1880) 5, 157, 158, 161, 162, 188, 209
Resolutions at Sergeant's Inn, Dyer, 165 (1558) 34, 48
Rex v. Aldenham, 3 Keble, 564-566 (1675) 133
Rex v. Alderman, 2 Levinz, 152, s. c. Freeman, 419, 3 Keble,
564-566, 604, s. c. sub nom Anonymous, I Ventris, 278
(1678) 103, 108, 114, 125, 129, 133, 134, 178
Rex v. Atkinson, 12 Modern, 496 (1702) 130
Rex v. Bond, i Strange, 22 (1717) 61, 62, 96, 97, 129
Rex v. Brunswick, 2 Keble, 19, s. c. sub nom Brunswick's
Case, I Levinz, 180 (1666) 115, 117, 137
Rex v. Bunney, i Salkeld, 190, 2 Saunders,
291, Carthew, 72 61, 89, 93, 97, 107, 108, 114
125, 126, 128, 129, 135, 137
Rex v. Causey Mss., 2 Bacon's Abridgment, 429 (1717) 62
Rex v. The Coroner, Comberback, 2 ( 1686) 131
Rex v. Cross, i Keble, 744, i Keble, 723, i Sider-
fen, 204, Popham, 210 (1664) 94, 100, 126, 127, 129
Rex v. Dalton, 2 Strange, 911 (1722) 109, 132
Rex v. Dolby, Umf reville's Lex Coronatoris, 144 142
Rex v. Eriswell, 3 Term Reports, 713 (1790) 113, 117
Rex v. Harrison, I Siderfen, 255-259 (1666) 127, 128, 129, 130
Rex v. Heathershall, 3 Modern, 80 (1685) 97, 108, 114, 125, 128
129, 131, 135, 224
Rex v. Heaton, 2 Term Reports, 184 (1787) 133
Rex v. Justices of Kent n East 228 (1809) 87, 91, 159, 189, 190
237, 238, 250
Rex v. Killinghall, i Burroughs, 17 (1756) 114, 115
Rex v. Macauley, 9 Coke's Reports, 666 ( 1612") 93
Rex v. Magrath, 2 Strange, 1242 (1746) 109, 132
Rex v. Paine, i Lord Raymond, 729, s. c. I Salkeld, 281 (1692) 137
Rex. v. Parker, 2 Levinz, 141, 3 Keble, 489 (1675) . . .61, 62, 89, 125, 126
129, 130, 132, 133
134, 135, 136
Rex v. Phillips, i Strange, 261 (1720) 126, 129
Rex v. Purefoy, Maidstone Summers Assize, 1794 117
Rex v. Ripley, Skinner, 45, pi. 16, s. c. 2 Jones, 198,
2 Shower 190 (1680) 108, 125, 128, 129
130, 133, 134, 135
Rex v. Roupel, Cowper, 458 (1776) 133
Rex v. Saunders, i Strange, 167 (1719) 62, 97, 129
Rex v. Scorey, i Leach, 43 (1749) 75, 107, 108, 109, 116, 214
Rex v. Solgard, Andrews, 231, s. c. 2 Strange, 1097
(1738) 61, 92, 116, 129
TABLE OF CASES 275
Pages
Rex v. Solway, 3 Modern, 100, pi. 61 (1686) 126, 128, 130, 222
Rex v. Stanlake, 2 Keble, 859 (1671) 128, 133
Rex v. Storke, 2 Keble, 800 (1679) 128, 120, 133, 134
Rex v. Stukeley, Holt, 167, s. c. 12 Modern, 493 (1701) 61, 103, 108
Rex v. Sutton, 2 Strange, 1073 (1737) 124, 129
Rex v. Thomas, Leigh & Cave, 313 ( 1863) 67
Rex v. Wakefield, I Strange, 69 (1718) 75, 108, 129, 130
Rex v. Warrington, i Salkeld, 152 (1692) 129, 140, 143, 231, 232
Rex v. Yaundel, 4 Term Reports, 542 ( 1792) 72
Reynolds v. Supreme Conclave, 19 Lane. L. R. 129, s. c. 2 Blair,
210 (1902) 225
Rich v. Ployer, 2 Shower, 286 (1683) 140, 143
Richards ats. Southampton, i Keble, 416 127
Ripley's Case, 2 Jones, 198, 2 Shower, 199, Skinner, 45 108, 125, 128
129, 130, 133
134. 135
Roupel ats. Rex, Cowper, 458 ( 1776) 133
Sadler's Case, 4 Coke's Reports, 57b (1588) 21, 22, 97
Sairbl v. Candith, Yelverton, 214 (1612) 141, 232
Saunders ats. Rex, I Strange, 167 (1719) 62, 97, 129
Schrogs v. Spencer, Moore, 548, pi. 734 (1675) 125
Schulz, ex parte, 6 Wharton, 269 (1841) 5, 22, 158, 166, 170, 177
178, 187, 209, 222
Schuylkill County ats. Fogarty, 13 Pa. C. C. R. 454 (1893) 172, 245
Schuylkill County ats. Rentschler, i Schuylkill Legal Record,
289 (1880) 5, 157, 158, 161, 162, 188, 209
Scorey ats. Rex, i Leach, 43 (1749) 75, 107, 108, 109, 116, 214
Shaefer v. Jack, 14 S. & R. 426 (1826) 153
Shaw ats. Allegheny, 34 Pa. St. 301, s. c. 7 P. L. J. 217, 12 W. N.
C. 312, 14 Lane. Bar, 101, 39 Leg. Int. 459 (1859) --I59, iQi, 209, 241
Shields v. Potter, 200 Pa. St. 241 (1901) 174
Smith's Case, Comberback, 386 (1697) 75/99, 102, 103, 178
Smith's Case, 4 Lane. L. R. 302 (1887) 160, 195, 203, 222, 227, 228
Smith ats. Commonwealth, 9 Dist. 350, s. c. 3 Dauphin, 159, 7 North,
255, 6 Lack. L. N. 151, s. c. sub now Commonwealth, v. Dau-
phin County Commissioners, 23 Pa. C. C. R. 646 174
Smith ats. Miller, 13 S. & R. 339 (1825) 153
Smith v. Nichola, 6 Dist. 595, s. c. 19 Pa. C. C. R. 440 (1897) 231
Snyder v. Commonwealth, 3 P. & W. 286 (1831) 153
Solgard ats. Rex, Andrews, 231, s. c. 2 Strange, 1097
(1738) 61, 92, 116, 129
Solway ats. Rex, 3 Modern, 100, pi. 61 (1686) 126, 128, 130, 222
Southampton v. Richards, I Keble, 416 127
Spencer ats. Schroggs, Moore, 548, pi. 734 (1675) 125
Sprang v. Commonwealth, 12 Pa. St. 358 (1849) 152
Sprecot's Case, 5 Coke's Reports, s8b (1590) 5<>, 52, 53
Springer ats. Commonwealth, 13 W. N. C. 305 (1883) 153
Stanlack's Case, I Ventris, 182, s. c. I Modern, 82-671
(1671) 62, 76, 126, 130, 170
Stanlake ats. Rex, 3 Keble, 859 (1671) I2 8, 133
276 TABLE OF CASES
Pages
Stockdale ats. Regina, 8 Dowl P. C. 516 (1840) 123, 126, 223
Stoecker's Inquest, 3 Kulp, 487 (1890) 177, 196, 204
Storke ats. Rex, 2 Keble, 800 (1679) 128, 129, 133, 134
Stukeley ats. Rex, Holt, 167, s. c. 12 Modern, 493 (1701) 61, 103, 108
Supreme Conclave ats. Reynolds, 19 Lane. L. R. 129, s. c. 2 Blair,
210 (1902) 225
Sutton ats. Rex, 2 Strange, 1073 (1737) 124, 129
Taylor v. Clark, 3 Levinz, 399 (1695) 142, 143
Thomas v. Churston, 2 Best & Smith, 475, s. c. 8 Jurist (N. S.)
795 (1862) 119
Thomas ats. Regina, Leigh & Cave, 313 (1863) 67
Thorney's Case, Croke's James, 276 (1612) 126
Tioga County ats. Francis, 8 Pa. C. C. R. 163 ( 1889) 247
Tombes v. Etherington, i Levinz, 120 (1663) 34, 46
Travener's Case, 3 Bulstrode, 176 (1617) 7, 20, 93, 102, 177
Troutman v. Chambers, 9 Dist. 533 ( 1900) . . . 163, 172, 186, 239, 240, 245
Uhler v. Northampton County, i Lehigh Valley,
213 (1886) 158, 159, 161, 188, 189
193, I9S, 202, 203, 205
Wakefield ats. Rex, i Strange, 69 (1718) 75, 108, 129, 130
Walker v. McKean County, 31 Pa. C. C. R. 664,
15 Dist. 577 (1905) 157, 158, 182, 203, 205
2O6, 220, 241, 242
Warrington ats. Rex, i Salkeld, 152 (1692) 129, 140, 143, 231, 232
Watson v. Beaver County, 9 Pa. C. C. R. 495, s. c. 27 W. N. C.
469 (1891) 158, 160, 180, 189, 198, 199, 202, 206, 239
Watts ats. Allegheny County, 3 Pa. St. 462 (1846) . .158, 209, 241, 242, 244
Weaver v. Northampton County, 2 Lehigh Valley, 408
(1887) 158, 160, 180, 190
205, 224, 238, 244
Welchmen's Case, Latch, 166 (1662), s. c.
Popham, 209 (1656) 58, 89, 93 100, 127, 133, 134
Wells v. Bain, 75 Pa. St. 39 ( 1874) 149
Weston v. Coulson, I Wm. Blackstone's Rep. 506 (1763) 139, 231
Wigges ats. Wrote, 4 Cokes' Reports, 46 (1592) . .21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 46
Wilson ats. Commonwealth, 7 W. & S. 181 (1844) 153
Winger v. McKean County, n Dist. 555, s. c. 26 Pa. C. C. R. 126,
8 Del. Co. 431, 18 Mont 88 (1901) 180, 182, 186, 189, 190
191, 198, 201, 206
Wingfield's Case, 21 Edward IV, 70-71 58, 61, 62, 89, 96, 97
Wiseman ats. Lambe, Hobart, 70 71, 72
Withipole's Case, Croke's Charles, 134-147, Jones, 198-9, Ley, 81
(1628) 98, 99, 127, 177
Witmore's Case, 3 Dist. 699, s. c. 14 Pa.
C. C. R. 464 (1894) 180, 183, 184, 191, 193, 198, 199
20O, 201, 202, 204, 238, 239
Wolverton ats. Commonwealth, 7 S. & R. 273 (1821) 153
Woods' Appeal, 75 Pa. St. 59 (1874) 149
Wrote v. Wigges, 4 Cokes' Reports, 46 (1592) . .21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 46
Wye ats. Morgan, Croke's Elizabeth, 574 (1594) 141, 232
TABLE OF CASES 277
Pages
Yaundel ats. Rex, 4 Term Reports, 542 (1792) 72
Year Book 30 & 31, Edward I, 522 18, 85, 93
" " 8, Edward II, Coron. 399 28
8, Edward II, Coron. 416 96
" " 8, Edward II, Coron. 421 63
" " 8, Edward II, Coron. 435 74
3, Edward III, Coron. 292 63, 76
" " 3, Edward III, Coron. 299 60
3, Edward III, 33 135
5, Edward III, nu. 38 49
8, Edward III, 38 22
" " 17, Edward III, 16 21
" " 21, Edward III, Coron. 238 60
" " 22, Edward III, 12 32
" " 25, Edward III, 42, pi. 35 136
" " 29, Edward III, 42 68, 69
29, Edward III, Coron. 462 68, 69
" " 34, Edward III, 146 82
38, Edward III, 14 73
" " 43, Edward III, 26 137, 139, 141, 232
6, Richard II, Coron. 107 58, 89, 97
7, Henry IV, 47 22
" " II, Henry IV, 93 131
13, Henry IV, 13, pi. 6 135
" " 14, Henry IV, I5b, 16 83
14, Henry IV, 34-5 57, 69, 71, 142, 143, 144
5, Henry V, Coron. 437 68
2, Henry VI, 12 140, 141, 232
" 3, Henry VI, 6-40-41-42 57
4, Henry VI, 16 17, 70, 82, 83
7, Henry VI, 333, 36a 139
" 19, Henry VI, 47 56
" " 22, Henry VI, 4ib 139, 140, 231
" 32, Henry VI, 27 53
" . " 35, Henry VI, I5a 9*
" 35, Henry VI, 33b, pi. 276 64, 65, 66
36, Henry VI, 31 135
" " 39, Henry VI, 41 143
4, Edward IV, 43 71, 135, M3
8, Edward IV, 4 133> 134
13, Edward IV, 3, pi. 7 T 3L 135
" " 15, Edward IV, 24 142, 233
18, Edward IV, 7b-8 141. 142, 232, 233
" " 21, Edward IV, 70 58,61,62,89,96,97,129
22, Edward IV, 12 125
1, Richard III, 6 135
2, Richard III, 2 58,61,62,89, 96
2, Henry VII, 33 72, 231
3, Henry VII 82
4, Henry VII, i7-i8-i8b 95
278 TABLE OF CASES
Pages
Year Book 6, Henry VII, loa 35
14, Henry VII, 2b 131, 135
14, Henry VII, 3ib 141, 232
8, Henry VIII, 12 233
I, Elizabeth, 152, pi. 2 46
Young v. Commonwealth, 4 Binney, 113 (1811), s. c. 6 Binney,
88 (1813) 151, 152
INDEX.
(References are to Pages.)
Pages
Abolition of the office, see Creation and abolition of the office.
Accessories before the fact inquired of 95
Admiralty coroner 23, 27
jurisdiction of 27 to 30
returns inquisitions where 124
Alfred, King, supposed to have created the office of coroner 8
Allegheny County, coroner's fees in 236
juror's fees in 243
surgeon's fees in, law as to reasonableness of ... 242
Appeals, see powers and duties in general.
Appointment or election :
Appointment, what coroner subject of in England, see Nature
of office, kinds of coroners.
Appointment of coroners in Pennsylvania 146
Causes for election in England 46
Commission of coroners in Pennsylvania 151
Election in England 44
franchise at 44
how conducted 33, 44, 45
not annual 52
when held 45
Election in Pennsylvania 146
method prior to 1701 146
method from 1701 to 1799 147
present method 149
Removal, see Eligibility and qualification.
Number of coroners elected in each county in England 32
Number of coroners elected in each county in Pennsylvania. 146, 149
Writ de coronatore elegendo 45
return of 45
Writ de coronatore exonerando 50
obsolete 150
Armstrong County, coroner's duties in 196
Arrest, see Inquest arrest of person charged.
Arsons, inquest into 65
Articles in Eyre of 1194 considered foundation of the office 8, 9
Articulae, super cartas 24, 25, 44
Assistants, see Deputies and assistants ; Justice of the peace acting
as coroner.
Autopsy, see Inquest autopsy.
Bail, admission to after verdict of coroner's jury 132
Beaver County, coroner's fees in 236
juror's fees in 243
(279)
280 INDEX
Pages
Berks County, coroner's fees in 236
surgeons fees in, law as to reasonableness of 242
Blair County, surgeon's fees in, law as to reasonableness of 242
Bodies, dead, see Inquest, deposition of body and property found
on it.
Bond, see Liabilities on official bond.
Bucks County, coroner's fees in 236
deputy coroners appointed under Act of 1873 172
first coroner of 146
surgeon's fees in, law as to reasonableness of 242
Cambria County, coroner's fees in 236
duties of coroner in 195
Camville, Gerard de 10
Carbon County, duties of coroner in 195
juror's fees in 243
Centre County, return where made 221
Certiorari to force return 124, 160, 224
Charter of Privileges of 1701 147
Chester County, deputy coroners appointed in under Act of 1864.. 172
first coroner of 146
Cinque Ports, charter of 16
coroners of 16
Clearfield County, return where made 221
Codification of the laws, suggestions as to 250
Colchester, charter to the Burgesses of 10, 12
Common law of England in Pennsylvania 5
Common law of Pennsylvania, defined 145
Compensation and fees :
audit of coroner's accounts 237
deputies' fees of, under Act of 1897 244
early history of laws concerning 234, 235
fees allowed first when 50, 87
de jure coroner only, entitled to 234
denied coroner if he acts without sufficient
cause 238
denied in ancient times where person died by
misadventure 87
forbidden in ancient times 50, 86
duplications of in cases of more than one
inquest 234, 247
penalties for receiving in ancient times 86
penny, one, always allowed 87
for preliminary examination under the Act
of 1897 2 4
fee system responsible for evils of present con-
ditions 159, 163, 200, 237
criticism of county courts relative to. 202, 203
items of compensation 234, 239, 240, 241
juror's fees and mileage 243
INDEX 281
Pages
justice of the peace acting as coroner, fees of... 175, 239
mileage 234, 235
physician, compensation of, for autopsy 234
salaries of coroners 247
surgeon, compensation of, for autopsy 234
wheat, compensation of coroner may be paid in 237
witnesses not entitled to fees or mileage 241
Constable, when process issues to 233
Costs, see Inquests, cost and expenses ; Compensation and fees.
Counsel, right to before coroner no, in, 214, 215, 216
Creation and abolition of the office :
abolition, necessity for 249
age of the office 7, 8, 9
alterations in the office in transportation to Pennsylvania. 145
articles in Eyre of 1194 considered foundation of the
office 8, 9
earliest authentic records of coroners 10
Eyre system, coroner concomitant in 15
history of the office in England 10
history of the office in Pennsylvania 145
no coroners in early Pennsylvania 145
justitiari of early Norman times 12
period of creation limited 9
Rotuli curiae regis rarely mention office 14
theories concerning origin or creation 14, 16
Crimes, relation of the office of coroner to the subject of 6
Criminal responsibility :
impeachment 165
improper inquest 165
individual not joint 143
jury not sworn 90
misfeasance in office 75
neglect in office 75
penalty for not returning inquest 124
prescribed by the Act of Third Henry VII 87
refusal to act 75
return not made 124
wrong presentment 165
Delaware County, return, where made 221
Deodands, defined 122
inquired of in England 42, 54, 55, 90, 94, 121, 122
unimportant in Pennsylvania 156, 180
Depositions, see Inquest, evidence; Inquest, verdict and inquisition.
Deputies and assistants :
admiralty coroner, deputies of 84
appointment in England, in general 143
appointment by coroners sive commissions 32
deputy coroner's powers in England 143
deputy, office of, created in Pennsylvania 172
constitutionality of Act of 1889 174
282 INDEX
Pages
Act of 1893 . , 174
constitutionality of Act of 1893 174
compensation of 172
conflict of jurisdiction with that of justice of the
peace acting as coroner 175
duty to make preliminary examination 186
compensation for 244
duties, what, subject of delegation 83
impossible at common law 83, 84, 166
exceptions 32
Duties, see Powers and duties in general ; Inquests.
Edward the Confessor, laws of 14
Effect of the inquisition:
in general 125
in England 125
in Pennsylvania 222
admission to bail after 132
credit anciently given 131
credit not given 131
disposition of inquest 97
evidence, effect of inquisition as 137
evidence, effect of, to be put in writing in no
innocence established by 197
indictment, as 222
not binding on prosecution 109
melius inquirendum 97
when awarded 128, 129, 130, 131
traversability 137
obsolete in Pennsylvania 160, 166, 223
parallel proceedings invariable 160
quashing, causes for, in England 128
remedy for improper inquest in England 129
traversability 97, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136
Election, see Appointment or election.
Eligibility and qualification :
in general, in England 46 to 51
in general, in Pennsylvania 149, 150, 151
bond and recognizance, liabilities on, see Liabilities on
Official Bond.
eligibility in general, in England 46
ineligibility to office of justice of the peace 47
incompetence to act until qualified 151
qualifications in England
in general 48
business other than public forbidden 49
inconsistent offices 49, 50
knighthood 18, 37, 46
reasons for 18, 47
obsolete 48
land 47, 49
INDEX 283
Pages
oath 33, 46
nature of 46
substance 47, 48
trade forbidden 49
qualifications in Pennsylvania
bond 149, 150
condition of bond 150
copies of record of, evidence 152
recording 151
sureties and approval of 151, 152
business other than public forbidden 150
declaration of Christian belief formerly
requisite 146, 150
oath 149, 150
property 149
recognizance 151
recording 151
recognizance and bond, liabilities on, see Liabilities on
Official Bond,
removal from office:
procedure in cases of 52
reasons for 49, 50, 51
without cause 52
writ de coronatore exonerando 50
obsolete 150
Elisors, denned 140
when appointed 140, 223
English common law in Pennsylvania 5
English law of coroners, need for study of 5
English statutes in force in Pennsylvania 5
Englishery 55, 122
Erie County, coroner's fees in 236
juror's fees in 243
Evidence, see Inquest, evidence.
Expenses, see Inquest, costs and expenses.
Fayette County, return where made 221
Fees, see Compensation and fees.
First finders, bound over to appear in court 123
Fitzpeter, Geoffrey 9, 10
Flight, finding of 134
Flight, forfeiture for 134, 253
Forfeiture, for flight 134. 253
Forfeitures, for suspicion of felony 43
Forfeitures, inquired of 90, 95
unimportant in Pennsylvania 156, 180
Forms :
adjournment 220
bond 250
inquisition 254
oath of jurors give in the mirror 251
284 INDEX
Pages
oath of jurors 217
oath of witnesses 218
opening of court 217
recognizance 251
writ de coronatore elegendo 45
writ de coronatore exonerando 50
Form of inquisition discussed 125
Frame of Government of 1683 146, 154
Frame of Government of 1696 147
Franchises, coroners of:
jurisdiction 31
ministerial duties 141
returns, where made 125
Grand jury, finding of, compared with coroner's verdict 132
relation of coroner's inquest to 109
Hall, Robert, first coroner of Bucks County 146
Henry I, laws of 13
History of the office in England 7 to 18
History of the office in Pennsylvania 145
Holding over, see Term of Office Vacancies and Holding Over.
Hue and cry, to be levied, when 42
Indiana County, surgeon's fees in law as to reasonableness of 242
Inquest :
arrest of person charged
in England 40, 90, 123
in Pennsylvania 220
autopsy, fee for, de facto coroner can bind county for. .234, 242
necessity for 210
surgeon, compensation of 234
compensation, to be reasonable 241
what is reasonable 242
paid though coroner gets
none 242
county commissioners cannot appoint.. 159
costs and expenses
ancillary expenses 244
duplication of costs, in cases of more than one
inquest 247
inquests at cost of party desiring it 206
paid by slayer, what portion is to be 234
paid by whom 234
course and conduct of the proceedings in general
in England 57, 97, 142
in Pennsylvania 208 to 220
adjournment 220
arrangement of the court 217
counsel, right to no, ill, 214, 215, 216
opening court 217
place of holding 93, 208
time of holding 92, 93, 208
INDEX 285
Pages
disposition of the body and property found on it
of the body, in general :
in England 40, 123
in Pennsylvania 164, 218
burial without sending for coroner. 61, 182, 209
cremation when allowable 218
morgue cases 229
suicide cases 123
of the clothing and property 230
disinterring 61, 182, 209
evidence, all, duty of the coroner to hear 107, 214
body as 107, 213
depositions as evidence in other cases... 137, 138, 225
effect of, duty of the coroner to put in
writing no, 214
limitations to 218
marks on the body as 107, 213
oath to, necessity of 107, 219
rules for guidance of coroners concerning 219
jurisdiction and authority
authority to disinter body for inquest 61, 209
when it may be done 61, 96
leave of court 62, 96
body must be left for view by coroner. .61, 182, 209
burial without sending for coroner 61, 182, 209
disinterring, see authority to disinter (supra),
inquests other than death 55
inquests where coroner cannot inquire 62, 171
inquests where coroner neglects to inquire 76
jurisdiction in England 34, 35, 54
admiralty coroner 27
concurrent, of admiralty coroner and
county coroner 28, 29, 30
concurrent, of verge coroner and county
coroner 25, 26
deaths caused in another county 36
deaths by misadventure caused in another
county 37
limitations upon 25, 26, 34
verge coroner 24
view of body, necessity for 62
jurisdiction in Pennsylvania
in general . . 161
conflicts in ... 162
deaths caused in another county 162
deaths by misadventure caused in another
county ' 162
murder and manslaughter said to be extent
of jurisdiction 159. 181
view of body, necessity for 62, 89, 209
-'So INDEX
Pages
jury, absence of a juror 218
amoval of jurors 108
attaint, impossible at common law 103
appearance, essential if summoned 98
challenges, right to 98, 99, 177
challenges, usually admitted 98, 99, 177
composition, in early times 39, 98, 102
criminal responsibility 98, 131, 177
disagreements 102, 177
fees 243
fining prohibited 98
four villes, formerly composed 39, 99
instructions, before inquest 101, 217
instructions, after inquest. . .100, 177, 178, 214
liabilities for misbehavior 98, 131, 177
mileage 243
mining cases, composition in 227
number of jurors in England -. 99
number of jurors in Pennsylvania 177
oath of jury 217
privilege to find contrary to evidence. 103, 179
privilege to recall witnesses 101, 177
qualifications in general, in England .... 98
as to estate 98
as to residence 99
in general, in Pennsylvania 176
relation to the petit jury 103
remedy for misbehavior of 131
removal of jurors from 108
residence 99
selection, method of 176
summons to, how served. .39, 97, 157, 208, 209
sworn 39, 101, 177, 214
by the coroner 101, 214
super visum cor-
poris 89, 101, no, 177, 214
verdict, attaint of impossible 103
verdict, formerly attainable without
evidence 101
view, necessity for 101, 177, 209
circumstances of no, 214, 217
witnesses, should not qualify on 101
nature and necessity in general
date 93
inquests by others than the coroner 62, 171
nature, in England
in general 39, 40, 96
accessories, before the fact 95
dangers to the community 93, 96
in case of death by drowning 41
INDEX 287
Pages
in cases of death ex visitatione die 90
in cases of death felo de se go
in cases of death by the hand of another. . . 90
in cases of death per infortunium 90
culpability 29
forfeitures 40
name of deceased 40
parties present 39
place of death 39
threats 95
accusation not the purpose 109
impartiality of inquiry 107
judicial character 83
publicity 113
in Pennsylvania
in general 180
definition of object 180, 184
application of definition 181
corallaries to definition 182
impartiality 214
judicial character 158
publicity 2li
necessity, in England
in general 39, 92
request essential to necessity 39
but not sufficient cause 92
by whom made 58
in Pennsylvania
in general 190
request essential to necessity. . .182, 208
but not sufficient cause 182
by whom made 208
approval of the court unneces-
sary 166, 224
coroner judge of 159, 189
decision, how reached. .163, IQO
limitations in mining cases. . 228
place of inquests 93. 208
preliminary view 163, 183, 190
scope of inquest :
in England
in general 39
arson 65
cases of death 54, 58, 91, 92
cases other than death 55, 63
housebreaking 39
prison, persons dying in 42, 63
prison breach 54
rape 41. 54
royal fish 55, 64, 67
288 INDEX
Pages
treasure trove 39, 41, 54, 64, 67
wounding 39, 41, 54, 64
wreck of the sea 41, 54, 56, 67
one coroner may hold 57, 142
in Pennsylvania
in general 188
in cases of death by accident. 161, 188, 203, 204
in cases of death by known cause 197 JT
in cases of death by unknown cause. . .198, 199
in cases of death by felony 161, 188
suspicion of 188
possibility of 188
in cases of death by the hand of
another . 161, 188
in cases of death by negligence 205
in cases of death in prison 188
in cases of death, sudden 190, 196
in cases of death by suicide. .161, 188, 201, 202
in cases of death, unnatural 190
in cases of death by violence 188, 191, 196
violence defined 191, 192 193
in cases of death by visitation of God.i6i, 188
inquest at costs of party desiring it 206
monsters and unborn infants 209
second inquests 57, 96, 97, 123
time and circumstances of holding inquest 92, 93
view, necessity for 62, 89, 101, 177, 209
verdict and inquisition
coroner's roll 123
inquisition, in England
amendments to 126, 128
certified 124
evidence, effect of when included .. 1 10, 124
method of forcing return 124
quashing, causes for 128
result of 128
remedy for improper 129
requisites
in general 125
culprit 126
date 125
jurisdiction 126
names of jurors 126
names of witnesses 127
official title 83, 125
parties bound over to appear 127
place 125
precision 125
qualification of jurors 127
sureties for parties bound 127
INDEX 289
Pages
swearing of jury 127
technical terms 127
return forced how 124
returned where 124
sealed I2 4
signed I2 3
variances 128
in Pennsylvania
amendments 224
approval of court unnecessary 160, 224
denial of fees not invalidating 239
effect of evidence when included 223
practice concerning 223
method of forcing return 160, 224
requisites
effect of evidence 223
form 222
length of time each day 243
name of culprit 223
names of jurors 223
nature of death 223
swearing of jury 223
return forced how 160, 224
return where made 221
return in mining cases 227
return under Act of 1866 222
return under Act of 1897 222
sealed 221
signed 221
written 221
justice of the peace, inquisitions of, see Justice of
the peace acting as coroner.
melius inquirendum
when awarded 128, 129, 130, 131
obsolete in Pennsylvania 160, 166, 223
traversability of 137
verdict, accepted by coroner, must be 103, 178
attaint, impossible 103
collateral impeachment of 225
coroner must accept 103, 178
decreasing importance of 181
effect of, now nugatory 225
evidence, not admissible in 225
how arrived at 102, 220
view of the body
coroner and jury must make together no, 214, 217
necessity for 62, 89, 209
what to be observed at 213
when held 208
witnesses, allowed to see the body after view had 218
290 INDEX
Pages
attachment of for appearance in court in
England 40, 123
attendance may be compelled 160, 219
bound to appear when summoned 61, 98, 160, 219
coroner cannot refuse to call exception 218
cross-examination of 219
examination of 241
expert witnesses not entitled to fees 241
fees not allowed 241
jury, should not be sworn on 101
summoned by the coroner personally 157
sworn 218
Inquests by others than the coroner 62
Inquisition, see Inquest, verdict and inquisition.
Jeofails, inquistion of coroner not within statute of 128
Jurisdiction, see Inquests, jurisdiction and authority.
Powers and duties in general.
Jury, see Inquest, jury.
Jury, trial by relation of the office of coroner to 5, 104, 105
Justices of the peace acting as coroner:
see Deputies and Assistants.
additional powers conferred on coroner not given 169, 170
compensation 239
inquiry by, where coroner cannot act 25, 166, 170
where coroner does not act 25, 166, 170
without view rare in Pennsylvania 160
jurisdiction in England 25
jurisdiction to hold inquest super visum corporis 166
jurisdiction under the Act of 1841 167, 168, 169
powers may be obsolete 175
preliminary examination by 186
returns must show jurisdiction on face. 169
not conclusive of necessity 169
rules governing 169
Kemmerly, James, first coroner of Chester County 146
King Alfred -. 8
King Edward the Confessor 14
King Henry I 13
King John 16
King William the Conqueror 13
Lackawanna County, see Luzerne.
coroner's duties in 195
returns, where made 221
Lancaster County, deputy coroners appointed under Act of 1852... 171
return, where made 221
surgeon's fees in, law as to reasonableness of... 242
Liabilities for negligence or misconduct:
in general 48, 49, 87, 165
escape 143
false return 143
INDEX 291
Pages
investigation of 76 to 81, 165
misfeasance in office 143
remedies in case of I2 4
Supreme Court may investigate 165
Liabilities on official bond :
in general ^
copies of record of bond evidence in suits on 152
discharge of lien of recognizance 154
execution prima facie evidence of approval of sureties
in suits on bond 152
suits on bond, how regulated 152, 153
sureties, real estate, bound by recognizance 152
London, charter of 12
London, coroner of 31
Luzerne County, coroner's duties in 195
jurisdiction under Act of 1866 192
Act of 1866 commented on 195, 106
juror's fees in 243
Lycoming County, coroner's fees in 236
Magna charta 13, 16, 18
Mandeville, Geoffrey de 1 1
Mercer County, deputy coroners appointed under Act of 1871 172
juror's fees in 243
surgeon's fees in, law as to reasonableness of .... 242
Meluis inquirendum :
in general 97
awarded when 128, 129, 130, 131
obsolete in Pennsylvania 160, 166, 223
traversability of 137
Mines, accidents in :
coroner's duties in regard to 226, 227
inquests, held, when 226, 227
inquisitions, requisites of 228
jurors, selection of , 227
mine inspector's duties 226, 227
returns, requisites of 228
Misconduct, see Liabilities for negligence and misconduct.
Criminal responsibility.
Morgues, see Powers and duties in general.
Municipal charters of King John 16
Muscham, Hugh de 52
Nature of the office :
see Powers and duties in general.
age of the practice of investigating sudden deaths 4
age of the office of coroner 7, 8, 9
foreign countries, similar offices in 3, 4
Hindu laws as to 4
investigation of sudden death, necessity for 3
investigation of sudden death, universality of 3
legislation, general, as to 5
INDEX
Pages
nature of the office in England
admiralty coroner 27
authority derived from election 34
burden of the office 49
centralized government, office an adjunct of 15, 16
definition 20 21
different kinds of coroners
virtute officio 21
virtute curtate sive commissionis 21, 22, 31
virtute electionis 21, 32
admiralty coroner 22
verger coroner 22
esteem of the office 49
franchises, coroners, of 23
justices of King's Bench as coroners 21
King's peace, relation of office to 15, 16
number of coroners in each county 32, 57
object of the office 15
profit of the King a feature 15, 16
obstruction of coroner misdemeanor 83
verge coroner 22
nature of the office in Pennsylvania
in general 160, 188
alteration in the office upon transportation to Penn-
sylvania 145
changes suggested 249
definition 157
different kinds of coroner 148
inquest a judicial inquiry 158
judicial office 158, 160
number of coroners in each county 146
obstruction of coroner misdemeanor 161
origin, age 7, 8, 9
Eyre system, concomitant in 15
King's profit 15
Norman institution 9
unknown 7
Negligence, see Liabilities for negligence or misconduct.
Inquest, nature and necessity in general.
Norwich, charter of n
Northampton County, coroner's fees in 236
deputy coroners appointed under the Act
of 1861 171
surgeon's fees in, law as to reasonbleness of 242
Northumberland County, surgeon's fees in, law as to reasonable-
ness of 242
Obstruction of coroner misdemeanor 83
Office, see Nature of the office.
Creation and abolition of the office.
Official bond, see Liabilities on official bond.
INDEX 293
Pages
Origin of the office, see Nature of the office.
Creation and abolition of the office.
Outlawry, see Powers and duties in general.
Owen, Griffith, first coroner of Philadelphia County 146
Passelieve, Ralph 1 1
Perry County, return, where made 221
Philadelphia County, coroner's duties 161, 164, 196
deputy coroners appointed under the Act
of 1867 172
first coroner of 146
inquests, when held 161, 164, 192
jail physician, duties of 161
jury, how selected 176
recognizance, means of escaping, liability
on 84, 154
Physicians, compensation of, see Inquest, autopsy.
Pleas of the crown, coroner to record 54
Post mortem, see Inquest, autopsy.
Powers and duties in general, see Inquest:
ancient powers
appeals 18, 41, 54, 68
limitations upon powers concerning 18, 68
convention of the hundred and torn 56
outlawry 18, 55, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 136
court of the coroner
in England
in general 69, 70, 84
proceedings, judicial 83
in Pennsylvania
in general 158, 19
proceedings, judicial 158
duties, in England
in general 39
act when notified so to do 57
ministerial, in general 139
sheriff, substitute for 139, 140
when 139, MI
all coroners act together 140, 142
elisors, when appointed 14
coroner not to intromit after
elisors appointed 142
process might be served on Sunday. 144
record all fines and amercements 82
rolls, coroner's roll content of 40
counter roll of sheriff 82
in Pennsylvania
in general *57
act when notified 1 &S
courts attendance upon 156
definition by Act of Assembly, lacking 157
294 INDEX
Pages
elections, duties at 157
mining accidents, see Mining accidents.
ministerial, substitute for prothonotary 158, 233
substitute of sheriff 158,231
when 231
morgues, in general 158, 229
chief executive officer of 229
management of 229, 230
registration of deaths 158, 164
powers, in England
in general 39
abjurations 55, 73
appeals 55
obsolete 75
approvers, appeals by 55
confessions in sactuary 55, 73, 74
deodands 55, 121
Englishery 55, 122
forfeitures 55
inquests of death 54, 57
inquests other than death 55
pleas of the crown, record of 54
sanctuary, confessions in 55, 73, 74
statutes of 4 Edward I and 3 Henry VII... 38, 39
presumption that coroner does his duty 48
authority derived from election 34, 46
commission to take inquest without view 57
enlargement of powers 56
exercisable by one coroner 57, 142
extent of powers 54
inquest without view 57, 65, 66
number of coroners necessary to act in given
cases 57, 142
committing 83, 85, 86
contempt, punishment of 83, 85
exclusion from inquest 83
oaths, administration of 83
posse commitatus, to call 142
sheriff or bailiffs, to call upon 84, 92
suspect, to bring, before inquest. 120
in Pennsylvania
in general 151, 157
appeals 156
deodands 156
forfeitures 156
inquests of death 160
inquests other than death 156
prison breach 156
treasure trove 156
INDEX 295
Pages
wreck of the sea 156
authority lacking until bond, etc., recorded 151
statutes, general, regulation by 157, 186
Act of 1907, discussed 187
statutes of Edward I and
3 Henry VII 158, 161, 186, 202, 203, 205, 255
committing 157, 220
contempt, punishment of 161
exclusion from inquest 211
oaths, administration 160
posse commitatus 233
sheriff or constable, to call upon 157
suspect, to bring, before inquest 213
privileges, exemption from arrest 88
exemption from jury service 88
exemption from office 88
Qualification, see Eligibility and qualifications.
Return, see Inquest, verdict and inquisition.
Salaries, see Compensation and fees.
Sanctuary, see Powers and duties in general.
Schuylkill County, coroner's fees in 236
deputy coroner appointed under the Acts of 1863
and 1871 172
surgeon's fees in, law as to reasonableness of . . . 242
Sheriff, relation of the office to that of 6, 15, 82
not to entromit after coroner has acted 14, 232
process to, issued erroneously cured by jeofails 233
Stuttville, William d' 9, 10
Suicide, see Inquest nature and necessity in general.
burial of 123
Surgeons, compensation of, see Inquest, autopsy.
Term of office, vacancies and holding over :
term, in England 46, 50
term, in Pennsylvania 147, 149
vacancies, how filled 154
occur when 154, 155
Treasure trove :
in England 39, 41, 54, 64, 67
in Pennsylvania 156
Vacancies, see Term of office, vacancies and holding over.
Venango County, juror's fee in 243
Verdict, see Inquest, verdict and inquisition.
Effect of inquistion.
Verge, defined 23
coroner of 22
coroner of, jurisdiction of 25, 26
coroner of, returns, where made 125
Washington County, juror's fees in 243
surgeon's fees in, law as to reasonableness of. 242
296 INDEX
Pages
Westmoreland County, coroner's duties in 192
William the Conqueror, laws of 13
Witnesses, see Inquests, witnesses.
Wreck of the sea :
in England 41, 54, 55, 57
in Pennsylvania 156
-75*