ABSTRACT
When the jury had been swom ... there were from twelve to fifteen reporters present, who had been sent from London, Bury, Ipswich, Chelmsford, and Colchester, which Mr. Wayman, the Coroner, observing, stated, with great urbanity and politeness, that he could not, consistently with his duty, allow notes of the proceedings to be taken for publication. The leamed gentleman, in support of this mode of procedure, cited the case of The King v. Flint, which went to show that it had been pronounced an offence to publish the proceedings of an inquest before the trial ofthe party accused; and, in allusion to the case of John Thurtell, he observed, that one of the judges had censured a coroner for allowing it. As the present was only a preliminary inquiry, friendly as he was to the liberty of the press, he had a paramount duty to perform, and, therefore, would issue his mandate that no notes be taken, for the purpose of publication.
