But it must be borne in mind, that a jury of men labouring in other vocations, living in a remote village, seldom attending coroners’ inquests, whose education is so limited, as not to be competent to seek for information, which the knowledge of medical jurisprudence inculcates, are the reasons why they must and do rely on the coroner to extract the evidence required; that their ideas of right and wrong may rest on the solid foundation of truth itself, which cannot be effected, unless the judge on obtaining evidence, explains the law bearing on the question, and introduces both, suitably to their comprehension. {59b} Unless this object is realized, coroners’ inquests are perfectly useless, and evidently prove there must be something “rotten in the state of Denmark,” which if enquired into, will be found to prevail in many instances even where gentlemen in the legal profession are coroners. But how can it be otherwise? Their knowledge of medical jurisprudence, if to a certain extent comprehended, must be far too limited to conduct enquiries of grave importance. The want of sound medical knowledge must prove the hindrance, because it is frequently observed when medical gentlemen give evidence, they use technicalities employed in the profession, and by stepping into details, they bewilder their hearers, and sometimes themselves also. {60} Therefore it may be assumed, that great tact and discrimination is required in the examination in any case where medical evidence is of paramount importance, and consequently it may be believed, that unless gentlemen are properly educated, so as to be able to elicit important truths connected with the science of medicine in all its branches, as well as the legal points in coronership, they cannot be capable of conducting inquiries, in all the integrity, which these solemn occasions demand. In conclusion, the following queries may not be deemed impertinent or superfluous:— Is it customary for coroners to be petulant, irascible, and over desirous to close their enquiries? Is it customary for witnesses to omit signing the depositions of their evidences? Is it customary for coroners to allow disputations to exist in their presence, which do not appear to harmonize with the solemn character of coroners’ courts? Is it customary with coroners to omit calling evidence that might be material towards corroborating testimonies where conflicting evidences arise, or links in the chain of evidence are broken? Is it customary for coroners previous to summing up, to order their courts to be cleared of witnesses, strangers, and reporters, who had been admitted to hear the evidence? Is it customary for coroners to summon witnesses _in person_, especially in cases of adjournment, where grave evidence has previously been given on oath? Is it customary for coroners at adjourned inquests, to call upon parties, in person, suspected of felony, to inform them of it?