[521] Jameson v. Board of Comrs., 64 Ind., 524.
[522] Regina v. White, 3 Ellis & Ellis (Eng.), 137. In this case a second inquisition found by a coroner’s jury was quashed by the court upon application of the defendants who were charged therein with wilful murder. In People v. Budge, 4 Park Crim. Rep. (N.Y.), 519, a coroner’s jury found that the death was caused by suicide, and nearly four months afterward the coroner summoned another jury and held a second inquest, at which the jury found that the deceased was killed by another, whereupon the coroner issued a warrant of commitment under which the accused was imprisoned, but on habeas corpus he was discharged from imprisonment on the ground that the second inquisition was unauthorized.
[523] The King v. Ferrand, 3 Barn. & Ald. (Eng.), 260; 2 Hawk P. C., 77.
[524] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 26, §§ 1 and 10.
[525] County of Northampton v. Innes, 2 Casey (Pa.), 156; Commonwealth v. Hannan, 4 Barr (Pa.), 269.
[526] Allegany County v. Watts, 3 Barr (Pa.), 462; Van Hoevenbergh v. Hasbrouck, 45 Barb. (N. Y.), 197. The New York legislature has made provision making the physician’s services in such a case a charge against the county and the physician must look to the county for his pay. Cosford v. Board of Supervisors, 38 N. Y. St. Rep., 964; 15 N. Y. Supp., 680. In Pennsylvania a physician or surgeon, employed by the coroner to make a post-mortem examination, may recover from the county a reasonable compensation for his services; and the county commissioners have no power to appoint a surgeon to perform such services, so as to preclude the coroner from selecting a proper person, in the exercise of his discretion. County of Allegany v. Shaw, 34 Pa. St., 301. It has been held that the authority of a coroner to employ a chemist to discover whether poison caused the death of one on whose body he holds an inquest does not restrict him to the employment of a resident of the county, and that the analysis of the chemist must not be made in the county of the coroner, and that even though the latter was, by corrupt appliances of others, induced to employ a chemist, it is no defence to a suit by the chemist to recover compensation for his services. Board of Commissioners v. Jameson, 86 Ind., 154.
In New York he is empowered by statute to employ not more than two competent surgeons to make post-mortem examinations and dissections and to testify to the same. N. Y. Laws of 1874, chap. 535, § 2.
[527] People v. Fitzgerald, 105 N. Y., 146. In this case, upon application of the defendant and upon affidavits showing sufficient reasons therefor, a coroner of Chemung County, N. Y., directed the exhumation of the body of a man, who died in California about one year previous and was buried in Chemung County; for the purpose of a post-mortem examination to determine whether the deceased was murdered, and the body was accordingly exhumed, and an examination had without empanelling a jury. An indictment was found against the defendant charging her with body-stealing under section 311 of the New York Penal Code, against body-stealing. It was held that conceding the proceeding to have been irregular, a conviction under that provision of the Penal Code could not be sustained, and this, without regard to the motives which actuated the defendant; that if she had committed any offence it was not that of body-stealing.
[528] Crisfield v. Perine, 15 Hun, 200, affirmed 81 N. Y., 622. This was an action of assault and battery and it appeared that the defendant was a coroner, and that he held an inquest on the dead body of a man who died after receiving personal injuries in an affray which he had with his nephew. A post-mortem examination was about to be made by two surgeons employed by the coroner for that purpose. The plaintiff, who was also a physician and surgeon, was in the room when the examination was about to be entered upon and said that he wished to remain and witness it, but the coroner asked him to leave, and on his refusing caused him to be put out of the room. For this act this suit was brought. It was held that the suit could not be maintained.
[529] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap 26, § 19.