Post by Glazin2018 on Jun 18, 2018 18:27:32 GMT -5
This is a reference to another one of the Quick family who emigrated from St Ives to Victoria - I think I know what the coroner is saying but would appreciate other thoughts.
The West Australian (Perth, WA : 1879 - 1954) Thursday 3rd January 1907
Family Notices
A MYSTERIOUS DEATH,
SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.
REMARKS BY THE CORONER
Melbourne, January 2.
An inquiry into the death of Susannah Sandow Quick, who died in the Melbourne Hospital on December 22, was held to-day. The body was on the way to the cemetery, when the burial was stopped by the Coroner, who required an autopsy. Dr. Mollison stated that death had been caused by peritonitis, blood-poisoning. There was nothing to show that anything of a criminal nature had occurred.
S. F. Ridley, a legally-qualified medical practitioner of the Melbourne Hospital, said that when he examined the deceased on December 21 she was suffering from septicoemia. She was operated on the same evening, and died 24 hours later from natural causes. Witness had given a certificate to that effect.
Johanna Quick, housemaid, sister of the deceased, said that recently she frequently heard her sister complain of being unwell, but the deceased had never said anything concerning her condition. Witness last saw her alive on December 11. Four days later she received intimation by letter that the deceased was in a private hospital. Witness did not make any effort to find her sister's whereabouts, as she expected her to write.
Another sister of the deceased gave somewhat similar evidence.
The Coroner said that he would not record that any blame was attachable to the hospital authorities. He was of opinion that the young woman's death had been brought about in some den, and if the case had been differently managed the unknown author of the evil might have been discovered. In every case of that kind the authorities should receive full information from the medical men, and he thought that there had been an error of judgment on Dr. Ridley's part. As for the sisters of the deceased, it must be patent to everyone that they had knowledge of their sister's whereabouts and the purpose for which she left her employer. He considered that they had steered very close to perjury. He had no hesitation in saying that they had perfect knowledge of the whole thing, but, as there was no absolute proof, he would not record the opinion. The verdict, was that Susannah Quick had died from septicoemia, supervening on a certain act.
There was not suficient evidence to show how the deceased's condition had been brought about, but he was of opinion that it was wilfully caused by criminal means by some person or persons unknown.
Family Notices
A MYSTERIOUS DEATH,
SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.
REMARKS BY THE CORONER
Melbourne, January 2.
An inquiry into the death of Susannah Sandow Quick, who died in the Melbourne Hospital on December 22, was held to-day. The body was on the way to the cemetery, when the burial was stopped by the Coroner, who required an autopsy. Dr. Mollison stated that death had been caused by peritonitis, blood-poisoning. There was nothing to show that anything of a criminal nature had occurred.
S. F. Ridley, a legally-qualified medical practitioner of the Melbourne Hospital, said that when he examined the deceased on December 21 she was suffering from septicoemia. She was operated on the same evening, and died 24 hours later from natural causes. Witness had given a certificate to that effect.
Johanna Quick, housemaid, sister of the deceased, said that recently she frequently heard her sister complain of being unwell, but the deceased had never said anything concerning her condition. Witness last saw her alive on December 11. Four days later she received intimation by letter that the deceased was in a private hospital. Witness did not make any effort to find her sister's whereabouts, as she expected her to write.
Another sister of the deceased gave somewhat similar evidence.
The Coroner said that he would not record that any blame was attachable to the hospital authorities. He was of opinion that the young woman's death had been brought about in some den, and if the case had been differently managed the unknown author of the evil might have been discovered. In every case of that kind the authorities should receive full information from the medical men, and he thought that there had been an error of judgment on Dr. Ridley's part. As for the sisters of the deceased, it must be patent to everyone that they had knowledge of their sister's whereabouts and the purpose for which she left her employer. He considered that they had steered very close to perjury. He had no hesitation in saying that they had perfect knowledge of the whole thing, but, as there was no absolute proof, he would not record the opinion. The verdict, was that Susannah Quick had died from septicoemia, supervening on a certain act.
There was not suficient evidence to show how the deceased's condition had been brought about, but he was of opinion that it was wilfully caused by criminal means by some person or persons unknown.
As a footnote Susannah had two illegitimate children, one in 1902 and one in 1905. The sister Johanna referred to also had two illegitimate children, one in 1902 and one in 1903.
Lannanta
But we still have an inference that Johanna married someone named Bennett so the question is just where and when did that marriage take place OR how was it indexed. 