Millett v. Edmonds : explanatory statement of the defendant.

  • Edmonds, Frederic.
Date:
1865
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Millett v. Edmonds : explanatory statement of the defendant. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    31/80 (page 31)
    witnesses. But Mr. Roscorla did not any more than 1 know what tlie witnesses could or would say when produced. It was a mere accident that I in terms requested Mr. Roscorla to appear for me at all before the magistrates. The fact of the matter was that neither Mr. Cornish, Mr. Roscorla, or I had a particle of known evidence to produce when the so-called prosecution was instituted beyond the rumours and hearsays, on the strength of which the order for the exhumation of the body was applied for, always excepting the certificate or report of the post-mortem by Messrs. Montgomery & Vincent. When Mr. Roscorla came to me about the witnesses I supposed that he had arranged with Mr. Cornish all about the proceedings, and that he would assist Mr. Cornish in the inquiry the latter gentleman had undertaken, I was utterly ignorant of the nature of the proceedings adopted. I considered myself a mere witness, giving my opinion only when asked, and imparting the information written to me by others. It seems to me now that whether a prosecution should or should not have been instituted against Dr. Millett really turned on my knowledge of criminal law procedure and of the validity of the (supposed) evidence which could or might be produced. After the meeting at the house of the Rev. Uriah Tonkin (the 20th January). I separated from the magistrates' clerk and Mr. Roscorla, who together went back to Hayle, where they ordered rooms, or caused rooms to be ordered, for the use of the magistrates, at the White Hart hotel, kept by Mr. Crotch, who sent in his bill for the same, with carriage hire, to Lelant, £4 17s., against Messrs. Cornish and Roscorla, to both of whom Mr. Crotch informs me that he applied for payment of his bill (see Appendix). These rooms for the use of the magistrates nmst have been so ordered on the 20th January by Messrs. Cornish and Ros- corla, after they had decided a prosecution would be, or should be, instituted, and that the rooms would be actually required. These rooms were ordered without my knowledge or authority, and the expense afterwards charged against me. I did not learn until eight or nine months after that they had been ordered on the 20th January,