Except in case of persons dying in jail, the Coroner must not hold unnecessary inquests on the bodies of those who have died in the ordinary course of nature. “And the Court of King’s Bench, on two several occasions within my own memory, blamed the Coroners of Norfolk and Anglesea, for holding repeated and unnecessary inquests, for the sake of enhancing their fees, on bodies and parts of bodies which were cast up by the sea shore, without the smallest probability or suspicion of the deaths happening in any other manner than by the unfortunate perils of the sea.” 1 _East. P.C._ 382. See _ib._ the case of _Rex v. Harrison_, for extorting money for _not_ holding an inquest. Footnote 77: For this purpose the Coroner issues a precept to the constable of such townships to return a competent number of jurors, viz. not less than twelve. 2 _Hale, P.C._ 59. 62. 1 _East. P.C._ 380. Footnote 78: But this power should be used with discretion. On a late occasion, the Judge severely reprobated the conduct of a magistrate, who had committed a poor lad to await the assizes, in company of notorious thieves and other desperate characters, because he had been the innocent witness of a felony, and was too poor to find recognizance. Footnote 79: Thus in the case of Sir _Edmondsbury Godfrey_, much blood might have been spared, and much political controversy avoided, if it had been possible to determine whether the murder had taken place in the field where the body was found, or at Somerset House, as charged by witnesses who afterwards confessed their perjury. Footnote 80: “It is true that the statute does in terms only require the coroner to put in writing _the effect_ of the evidence. But this must not be taken to give him a latitude, such as hath been but too often taken by persons of this description to the great perversion of truth and justice, of putting down, not the words of the witnesses, but his own conception of their tendency. It is doubtless the meaning of the act, that the examination of the witnesses should be taken down with the greatest possible accuracy as to all material points of the inquiry: otherwise one great benefit of the act, which is to enable the Court to compare the examination with the evidence, must be defeated. _The effect_ mentioned therein, means the true and genuine sense of the evidence, as delivered in detail, not indeed in letters, syllables, or even words; though these should not be needlessly departed from; but the fair and obvious meaning of the words spoken, and not the final result of the evidence. Complaints have in my own memory been made by judges on the circuits of the culpable neglect of coroners in this respect, and threats of exemplary punishment holden out to them, to prevent a repetition of the same abuse in future.” 1 _East. P.C._ 384. Footnote 81: