Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 11 November 1892

A Body Disinterred at Wombwell

Last week, the Home Secretary gave the order for exhumation of the body of Charles Drewery, and the body was disinterred on Friday morning last, and taken to the Ship Inn stables, where Doctor Sadler of Barnsley, and Doctor W.M. Burman, of Wath, conducted a post-mortem examination in the presence of Doctor Millar (medical Officer of Wombwell) and Doctor Blackburn of Barnsley.

At 1.30 in the afternoon, Coroner Wightman held an inquest on the body in the large room at the Ship Inn.

Three solicitors were present – Mr Parker Rhodes, representing the Mitchell Main Company; Mr W.E. Raley (Barnsley), representing the relatives of the deceased and the Yorkshire Miners Association; and Mr C Hodgkinson (Barnsley), representing the police.

There were further present – Mr F.N. Wardell, Government Inspector of Mines; Mr T.W.H. Mitchell, Secretary of the Mitchell Main company; Mr Cowie and Mr Parrott, of the Yorkshire miners Association; the four medical gentlemen previously mentioned; Superintendent Kane (Barnsley), and Mr W Washington and Mr H Neville, manager and under manager respectively of Mitchell Main.

The coroner said that there was an enquiry into the cause of the death of a man who died on 12 August last. A report was sent in in the ordinary course from the police to him, and he took rather more trouble than he generally did with it, and satisfied himself that there was no suspicion whatever that an accident had led  to the death of the deceased. He came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the man had died from heart disease, or at any rate, whether heart disease or not, from natural causes in some shape or way, and was led to come to that conclusion to a very great extent by the fact that the man had never, so far as the report went, complain of any injury, but that he had been low, polar, unwell, and on the occasion of his death he came out of the pit, when walking home, got a drink of water, and fell stone dead, either stood or on a chair. And that he did not think it is duty to hold an inquest, and he was sure the jury would bearing out when he said he did hold a very great many for simply safety’s sake, and not always because there appeared any imperative demand for one, but for fear of letting anything escape he held a many inquest where they did not appear absolutely necessary.

He might go further and say that many times he felt ashamed of giving juries the trouble of coming to inquest which did not take 10 minutes, and which he was satisfied the majority went away from it in the opinion that there never ought to have been an inquest at all.

Now of course he, he was a public servant, and he did not shut his eyes for one moment to the fact that many of them might think he had held an inquest for the sake of being paid for holding them, but here was a case where he had not held one for the sake of being paid. However, some officious person or persons thought they knew a good deal more about the duties of the Coroner than he did. They communicated with the Secretary of State, and set up a whole history of the thing, why hadn’t he held an inquest, and why there ought to have been one. He could not say, and he did not say, the Secretary of State was of the same opinion that he was when he declined to hold an inquest, but he could say that the letter he received from the Secretary of State was put most courteously in the shape of saying:

“I should be glad if you would hold one.”

He would have put it stronger than that he thought there ought to have been won. Therefore he was holding one and they would be in good form for getting to the bottom of it, seeing the number of lawyers engaged in it.

Mr Raley Rose said; I am for the officious person you mentioned. I think you have rather prejudiced this inquest by your remarks.

The Coroner: Well, that remains to be seen.

The following evidence was taken:

Helen Drury, the deceased’s widow, said deceased was 32 years of age, and was a hanger on at Mitchell Main. He was a healthy man. Four years ago he was attended by a Doctor at Hoyland, but that was the only illness he had.

The Coroner: My report says he was unwell for a month before his death.

Mrs Drury: Well, he complained of a pain in his back, but he was not unwell. He complained of nothing else. On Friday morning, 12 August, he went to work just as usual, and didn’t complain of anything. About 315 in the afternoon witness was called to Mr Jagger’s house, and found her husband lying on the hearth rug dead.

Michael Thomas Sadler, M.D., London University, and M.R.C.S., resident at Barnsley, said:

I have this day made a post-mortem examination, assisted by Doctor Burman, of Wath, of the body of the deceased. The body was so decompose and saw black in patches that it was impossible to speak with certainty as to any external traces of injury. Perhaps I ought to mention, as I was told there was some question about it, that the skin of both hands was much decompose, but the little finger of the right hand was a most disorganised of all. The bones and nails were, however, entire. There was no sign of injury in the head. All the organs of the chest and abdomen were very much decompose, but I was able to examine most of them. I hope in the pericardium and found that the heart was adhered or stuck to it behind, and there are traces of lymph which had glued it together. The muscular walls of the artwork thing, but too much decompose to say whether there was any degeneration of the muscular tissues are not. The pleurs of the left lung were was very much adherent to the lining of the chest. The right lung was very adherent, but behind only. There was no fracture of the ribs. We did not very carefully test the legs and arms, because we knew there was no suspicion of them.

The Coroner: You have one question to answer, which is most important. What is your opinion of the cause of this man’s death? Did you find any injury which led you to suppose he died in any way from accident?

Doctor Sadler: I found no trace of injury, except possibly the little finger of the right hand.

The Coroner: I mean any injury that could conduce to or cause death?

Doctor Sadler: I could not find any.

The Coroner: Then the injury to the little finger did not accelerate or cause death?

Doctor Sadler: No.

The Coroner: Then what is your opinion of the cause of death.

Doctor Sadler: I can only say what seems on the surface most probable. It is that as his heart was adherent to the pericardium it could not act with proper vigour during unusual exertion, and I should imagine he had had some extra exertion or excitement of some kind, which threw a greater strain upon the heart than it could bear. Especially would this be so, seeing that one of the lungs was so tied down, which would increase embarrassment of the heart, because the blood would not be sufficiently serated.

Mr Parker Rhodes said he had nothing to ask.

Mr Hodgkinson asked how soon discolouration was likely to set in after death, and Doctor Sadler replied in a few hours or according to circumstances.

Mr Raley asked if the extra decomposition on the right side will be caused by a bruise, and Doctor Sadler replied that there would not be a great difference. It was quite possible for a man who died at 3 o’clock to be discoloured at four. If the man has had a severe injury, he would not have been able to walk home.

William Maxwell Burman, surgeon, of Wath agreed with the evidence given by Doctor Sadler in total. He added: to a man who had such diseases as the deceased had, is heart been adherent to the pericardium, and the left lung adherent to the chest, any overexertion or any approach to fitness will be fraught with danger.

William Slater, hanger on at Mitchell Main, said deceased was assisting him on the day he died. They went in about six in the morning and at 730 deceased complained that he had trapped his finger. He went and wrapped it up, and then continued working to 1.40 in the afternoon, when he said he was “not,” meaning tired. He asked to go off, and went. He had only work two days at that colliery, and came from Darfield Main.

The Coroner asked what more did the jury want.

Mr Raley said he should like to call Mrs Williams, who laid the body out.

The Coroner: Well, can she contradict the evidence of the medical man? If she was to say that he had his legs and arms broken should I believe it? No! There is no evidence of any accident at all.

Mr Raley thought it was an injustice to his client to be called an officious person. He wanted to show the jury the reason for that inquest.

The Coroner: Well, I don’t want to stop you, but in the face of the medical evidence is there any hope of convincing the jury that there is any other cause of death than that has been referred to here?

Mr Cowey: All we say is were justified in asking for this inquest by the evidence given to us by certain persons.

The Coroner: You say you were justified in asking for an inquest on such statements as you had before you?

Mr Raley: Exactly.

The Coroner: Well, I am not finding fault in any way.

Mr Raley: Well, you did say. You term ones officious. If you could see your way to withdraw it.

The Coroner: But I don’t withdraw it, the reason is that some person or persons – not Mr Cowie, I leave him out – don’t they knew more than I did, and I’ve made, through police officers every enquiry. I think the inquest today will – and I’m not boasting – thoroughly convince most people that the opinion I arrived at on the evidence I was entitled to get, was the correct one.

Mr Raley: Possibly might have been, but we should have been convinced that the time if an inquest had taken place then, and it would have been more satisfactory to the relatives of the deceased.

The Coroner: I don’t want to dictate to you all the Miners’ Union, but I think I had such information laid before me that made me think there was no necessity for an inquest.

Mr Raley: After hearing the evidence of the doctors, I think it is satisfactory to the friends of the deceased and the Miners Association, and it won’t be necessary to ask for anything more.

The Coroner: I am glad to hear you say so.

Mr Parker Rhodes said he had made every possible enquiry, and could find nothing bearing upon an accident, except the trapped finger.

The jury retired and returned a verdict that “Deceased had died from natural causes but on by over exertion.”