From the Kentish Chronicle, 3 December 1857.

INQUEST ON THE BODY OF JAMES COPPINS.

Rumours were current that other persons had suffered from taking draughts purchases at Mr. Reeve's shop. In one case that of a man named Coppins, an old man 82 years of age, who died on Sunday week - they assumed a sufficient definite shape to render it the duty of the Coroner to institute further inquiries. He accordingly directed the body to be exhumed from the gave in S. Dunstan's churchyard, which wa done early on Monday morning. A post-mortem examination was afterwards made by Mr. Robert Tassess, and at three o'clock an inquest was held at the "Monument," St. Dunstan's before T. T. Delasaux, coroner for the district, and a respectable jury.

The Coroner said, there were no doubts aware on whose body they were about to hold the inquest, and that the circumstances of the inquiry were somewhat universal. The deceased was buried on Sunday week. Since then, however, a complaint had been made to him by a parishioner named White, to the effect that there was reason to believe that the deceased did not come to a natural but violent death. He requested the jury to give a dispassionate attention to the evidence to be brought before them.

The jury then viewed the body and the following evidence was taken.

Elizabeth Coppins, the widow of the deceased, deposed:- I live in the parish of St. Dunstan. The deceased was my husband and 82 years of age. He has been ill and has done no work for two months past. His death took place at about one o'clock in the afternoon of the 15th inst, in the parish of St. Dunstan. He had only been a little poorly before his death. On Monday night, the 14th inst., between seven and eight o'clock, I went to the shop of Mr. John Reeve, chemist, in St. Peter's Street, and asked him for a blue pill and black draught. I gave the pill to my husband overnight (Tuesday) I gave the draught to him, and he drank it from a glass in my presence. About an hour after he had taken the draught he seemed as if he could not walk. No other change took place till we got him into bed, assisted by Mr. Waite and my daughter. Then he turned very pale, and about two hours before he died he became very drowsy. He died in that state about one o'clock. I fetched the medicine in a vial. The one now produced is the same. It was a vial of my own which I had in the house. It was filled in the shop, nearly half full, from a small vial. I saw Mr. Reeve but he did not serve me. He told a lad in the shop to serve me and he did so. I did not have any medicine there before during my husband's illness.

By the Jury:- My husband had no medical attendance during his illness.

[The medical certificate signed by Mr. Charles Holttum, was put in. It attributed the death to chronic bronchitis.]

A Juror:- Is it usual for a medical man to give a certificate of death without having attended the deceased?

Mrs. Coppins said, in answer to another of the jury, that Mr. Holttum had attended her husband, but she could not say how long it was since he had done so.

By the Coroner:- My husband was a member of the Black Dog Club, of which Mr. Holttum is surgeon.

Nathaniel Waite:- I have known the deceased forty years. I frequently saw him. On Monday, the 14th December, I saw the deceased walking in St. Dunstan's Street at about three o'clock. The next morning at about a quarter to nine, I was called in by Mrs. Coppins. I went into the house and up-stairs, where I saw the deceased. I saw a great change in his appearance from Monday. He appeared to be in a fit. I advised Mrs. Coppins to get him into bed. He stared very much, and seemed stupefied. I spoke to him and he did not answer me. Mrs. Coppins spoke to him, and he made noise, as though he had heard me, and was not quite insensible.

Inspector Spratt here produced a full vial (the same that he purchased at Mr. Reeve's shop) and Mrs. Coppins being re-called, said that the bottle from which Mr. Reeve had poured the draught into her vial was similar to the one now produced by Spratt.

Inspector Spratt:- On Saturday last, the 26th, between two and three o'clock, I went to the house of deceased, and received from the last witness the empty vial produced, which she said was the one which contained the draught taken by the deceased.

Mr. Robert Tassell:- I am a surgeon. I made a post-mortem examination this day on the body of the deceased. The external appearance of the body showed no decomposition or any emaciation, but was to all appearance healthy. On removing the cranium the vessels of the brain were considerably congested, and very soft and friable. On examination of the heart it presented a fatty appearance, and was rather enlarged. The valves of the heart were healthy, with the exception of the aortic valve. The lungs were congested and the tubes more or less filled with mucous. The liver was congested, but otherwise healthy. The stomach contained about two ounces of thick brown fluid. I did not examine it minutely, because I thought further examination necessary. I should not like to give an opinion as to the cause of death. I cannot do so till the contents of the stomach have been analysed. There was about 1 1/2 oz. of fluid in the brain which was quite enough to to cause death, but I cannot say what produced the congestion. I think that the congestion of the various organs of the body would tend to produce death, but I should not anticipate a crisis coming on so suddenly without some exciting cause.

The coroner said that under the circumstances the inquiry had better be adjourned till the following evening, to which the jury assented.

ADJOURNED INQUEST.

The jury re-assembled at eight o'clock, when the following additional evidence was taken:-

Mr. Tassell:- I should like to have Mrs. Coppins present, and examine her myself as to the symptoms her husband showed before death. It would assist me materially i forming my conclusion as to the cause of death. When a person has been taken out of his grave and a medical man has to give his opinion as to the cause of death, he naturally labours under a great difficulty, at least, unless he can ascertain some of the symptoms which preceded death.

The Coroner:- You cannot question Mrs. Coppins but I will read over the evidence she gave yesterday in which she described many of the symptoms of the deceased. (The Coroner then read over the evidence.)

A Juror:- There is a discrepancy between the evidence of Mrs. Coppins and that of Waite. She says that he waited to assist the deceased into bed; but he stated that he did not do so. Besides, I know that this man walked with great difficulty before; so that it may naturally be supposed that he could not walk well on the morning in question.

Mr. Tassell:- I only wished to ask Mrs. Coppins whether the deceased on the morning of his death became gradually drowsy, or whether he went off in a fit with screaming, or any noise?

The Coroner:- I think you may be sure that he went off gradually, for Mrs. Coppins said nothing about screaming or any noise having been made by the deceased.

Mr. J. Tassell then said, as evidence - I took the stomach of the deceased and put it into a jar, together with a portion of the small intestines, previously tying up the ends of the stomach. I sealed the jar and gave it into the hands of Inspector Spratt. I was present at the shop of Mr. Linford when the seal was broken - indeed, I broke it myself. That was of the evening of yesterday.

Mr. J. S. Linford said:- Yesterday I received from Inspector Spratt a jar containing the stomach of the deceased. It was opened in the presence of the last witness. It contained a stomach and the small intestines. Mr. Tassell assisted me to cut the stomach open, empty the contents (about 1 1/2 ox. of brown thick fluid), and scrape the inner coat, that we might have the whole of the contents. I washed the inner coat of the stomach with distilled waters. I examined the fluid and detected in it traces of meconic acid, the constituent which proves the presence of opium. I could not have discovered opium by itself. Opium is discovered and proved by the presence of its two constituents - meconic acid and morphine. I cannot positively say that the bottle produced (the one from which the deceased took his draught) has contained opium; but it is my firm opinion that it has. I took one drop of the mixture remaining in that bottle, and having subjected it to proper test, there resulted the usual sign of the presence of meconic acid, I can say positively that the stomach of the deceased contained opium (the presence of the meconic acid proves it. I cannot say what quantity, or whether enough to have caused death, because I only examined a very small quantity of the contents of the stomach. Morphia - the constituent which shows the presence of opium - is very readily absorbed in the system, and is very seldom found in the body after death.

Mr. Tassel was then re-examined, and said:- Having heard the evidence of Mr. Linford concerning the contents of the stomach, I can say the immediate cause of death was the fluid in the brain, and that this might have resulted either from apoplexy, or from poisoning by opium; because it has not been ascertained what quantity of the opium was in the stomach. Supposing that poison had been taken, it might have been so absorbed in the system to cause death; but old age is also a very liable to serious apoplexy. The body was in a healthy condition.

By the Jury:- A dose of opium would probably produce quicker effect upon an old man than a young one. If the stomach were empty at the time the poison was taken it would be more rapidly absorbed into the system, and less of it be found in the stomach. There has been no proof of the quantity of opium found in the stomach.

The Coroner then summed up the evidence. You have now, gentlemen, he said, the whole of the testimony before you. It is quite clear that something was taken by the deceased shortly before his death; and that the medicine, whichever it was, was obtained from the shop of Mr. Reeve. It will be your duty to say from the evidence whether, supposing the deceased took that medicine, it caused his death. From the last sentence the surgeon said, he clearly throws considerable doubt on the point; because he tells us that the deceased died from one of two causes - serious apoplexy, or poisoning by opium. I entreat the jury to pause before by their verdict they incarcerate a person within the walls of a gaol on the charge of having committed a most serious offence, unless they believe that upon the subsequent trial which must take place a conviction will be obtained.

The Jury then consulted alone for about five minutes, and upon the re-admittance of the public they said it was their unanimous opinion that the death of the deceased was a natural one. They therefore returned a verdict to that effect.