one way and 6 for another; that Mr. Whyte dictated the verdict to the Coroner, and the Coroner asked the 13 men if that was what they agreed to.  Mr. Whyte’s statement was that the jury, through the foreman, stated what their verdict was; that he wrote it down, and that the Coroner asked him for what he had written, and used it himself.  But in addition to that, when the jury came in the Coroner and Mr. Whyte divided them—­placed them apart while the verdict was being written—­and then said to the 13 men, “Is that what you agree to?” Such apparent misconduct it was hardly possible to conceive in anybody occupying a judicial position as did the Coroner, and especially a Coroner who had an inquisition quashed before.  What he had mentioned was sufficient to call forth the emphatic decision of the court quashing the proceedings, which, however, were also impeached on the grounds of its insufficiency and irregularity, and of the character of the finding itself.  It was not until the Coroner had been threatened with the consequences of his contempt that he made a return to the visit of certiorari, and it was then found that out of ten so-called depositions only one contained any signature—­that of Dr. Clarke’s, which was one of those lost by the clergyman, and not before the jury on the 1st September.  He (the Lord Chief-Justice) had tried to read the documents, but in vain—­they were of such a scrawling and scribbling character, but, as he had said, all were incomplete and utterly worthless except the one which was not properly before the jury.  Then, what was the finding on this inquisition, which should have been substantially as perfect as an indictment?  “That Mary Anne Gaffney came by her death, and that the mother of this child, Ellen Gaffney, is guilty of wilful neglect by not supplying the necessary food and care to sustain the life of this child.”  Upon what charge could the woman have been implicated on that vague finding?  He (his Lordship) could understand its being contended that that amounted argumentatively to a verdict of manslaughter; but the Coroner issued his warrant and sent this woman to prison as being guilty of murder, and she remained in custody, as he had already remarked, until discharged by the learned judge who went the Winter Assizes in December.  Upon all of these grounds they were clearly of opinion that this inquisition should be quashed, and Mr. Coroner Gowing having had the self-possession to come there to show cause against the conditional order, under such circumstances, must bear the costs of that argument.

Mr. Fred. Moorhead, who, instructed by Mr. O’Kearney Whyte, appeared for the Coroner, asked whether the Court would require, as was usual when costs were awarded against a magistrate, an undertaking from the other side—­

The Lord Chief-Justice.—­That is not to bring an action against the Coroner, you mean?

Mr. Moorhead.—­Yes, my Lord.  I think it is a usual undertaking when costs are awarded in such a case.  I think you ought—­