THE FATALITY AT RAUNDS
SIR,—"Junius" wants me to substantiate what I wrote in my letter the other week, upon the death of Joseph Scott. Had he read the full report of the inquest he would not have needed to have betrayed his ignorance respecting the scandalous way in which deceased was treated. As to my statement that he was dropped in a hole in Raunds Churchyard like a dog, I meant that he did not receive decent burial. I admit that he received what is called Christian burial, but it was not decent burial to inter a man with his clothes on and unwashed, when there were those who would have performed for him the last offices; and if your correspondent had read the published report he would have seen that a juryman remarked that he believed his death was caused by his being treated by those who had to do with him on Monday night more like a dog than a human being. To be treated in this way and to be buried as I have described was more like the burial of a dog, despite the so-called Christian burial. A little more practical Christianity would have been more creditable to those who are responsible for this outrage upon deceased and humanity.

Death from Exposure at Raunds

DEAR SIR,—As a constant reader of your newspaper, would you allow me to express my opinion on the sad occurrence which has been the principal topic of late in this locality. I believe it gives your readers great satisfaction (as it does myself) that you have permitted the subject to be well ventilated by the different correspondents who have contributed more or less information with regard to the facts of the case, but a great deal of misunderstanding still exists, especially I believe in the village where the deceased last resided.

The most conclusive statement of the case, which up to the present has appeared, is the one which your last issue contained with the initials "H.N." The writer, as a witness, clearly and unmistakably proves that intoxicating drink was the cause. Therefore the charge must again (with so many other untimely deaths) be laid to the "drink traffic." I would not like to put too much blame on any particular publican, as he is but following a legal vocation—it is to Parliament we must look for remedy from this national evil.

I saw the body of the deceased Scott as it lay on the side of the road, before it was removed to the "Cock Inn." There were a few slight scratches on the ear and a bruise on the arm, which were doubtless done through his falling down as described by "H.N." I don't say but what the boys in the street might have had a bit of fun at his expense (as they call it) as this is often the case when a drunken man takes notice of them and retaliates, but I don't for a moment think the deceased received injuries to cause his death, as "H. N." clearly shows. In fact, the verdict is about correct, only not very specific, for the deceased was first exposed to the drink, which was the real cause of the exposure all night, in the second instance to the cold water in the dyke, which I think would be sufficient to cause the death of any man, even if sober. Death had not occurred long I think when the body was found, at least the body was not stiff.

The deceased was buried respectfully with the exception of changing his clothes and washing, which would make no difference to deceased. The main question is, did he come to his death by violence from other person or persons? It is clear he did not, to all honest enquirers.—Yours truly,