On Sunday morning the six weeks old male child of John Cox, of Allen-road, Rushden, was found dead in bed, where he had slept by the side of his parents, and the indications pointing to suffocation, an inquest was held on Monday evening at the Vestry Hall, Rushden, before Mr. J. T. Parker (county Coroner). Mr. J. S. Clipson was chosen foreman of the jury. The evidence was adduced as follows :-

Annie Cox, wife of John Cox, of Allen-road, said that her husband was a shoe finisher. The deceased child was six weeks old, and was in good health until Saturday, when she took him out, returning at 9.20 p.m. Witness was out with her husband, but returned home and went to bed before him. The child was put to bed with the others at 10.20 p.m., the child being put in witness’s bed. Witness woke up at 6.45 in the morning, when the child was all right. She dropped off to sleep with her child sleeping on her right arm. She awoke about 8.30, when the child was still on her arm. She looked at him, and saw there was something wrong. The flesh was dark, and the child lay as though he was dead. Witness’s husband picked the child up and ran downstairs with him. He did not think the child was dead, as he was still warm. Witness fetched Mrs. Britton, a neighbour, who said the child had a fit. They got some hot water, but Mrs. Britton, on further examination, said the child was beyond their aid. The bed clothes were not over the child’s head. She might have pressed the child, and he might have rolled over in his sleep. She had had eleven children, and this was the first one that had died in this way. – By the foreman: The child was at the breast when she fell asleep at seven o’clock, and the child might have been pressed against the breast.

The father of the child said that he went to bed at 11.15 p.m., with his wife and the child. They came home together. He met his wife at the “Feathers” at 10 o’clock, and stayed there until 10.30 p.m., when they went home. When they went to bed the child was all right. He did not hear anything of the child all night, but at eight o’clock his wife woke him by saying that the baby was dead. The child was then lying in bed. Witness picked up the child. He was warm, but his lips were blue. His wife told him she gave the child the breast when she woke at 6.45. – The Coroner: I suppose you were sober on Saturday night? – Witness: Well, I was not drunk. – The Coroner: You had had a little? – Witness: Yes. – The Coroner: In these sort of cases we have to rely upon people being able to corroborate one another. You and your wife don’t say the same thing. Suppose she said she got home at 9.20 that night? – Witness: She may have been at home at that time, because I was not with her. – The Coroner: Suppose she said she did not come out again? – Witness: She may have been wrong. – The Coroner: The jury want to be satisfied with the evidence before them, but this evidence will bring doubt to their minds. If you are wrong in one particular you may be wrong in another. Your wife says she went to bed first and you say you went to bed together. – Witness: She was not in bed when I got home. – The Coroner: She says she was. Then what she says is not correct? – Witness: She may have made a mistake. – The Coroner: You both went along the road together? – Witness: We went up Queen-street together; but, no, I think we came this way (indicating Newton-road). – The Coroner: What, from the “Feathers”? – Witness: I said I was at the “Wheatsheaf.” Did I say the “Feathers”? – The Coroner: You seem to be very uncertain of your movements. – Mr. Page (juryman): Did you go to the “Wheatsheaf” when you left the “Feathers”? – Witness: Yes.

Mrs. Cox was re-called, the Coroner remarking that he did not wish to make any discord in the household, but he would like to reconcile the evidence. Mrs. Cox adhered to her statement that she got home first, and left the supper ready for her husband, who came later. – Mr. Cox, examined by the Coroner, admitted that his wife came to the “Wheatsheaf” to get him home. – The Coroner warned Mr. Cox of the penalty of committing perjury, and told him he was expected to tell the truth. He pointed out the seriousness of saying things which were not true, and the view which the jury might take if matters of detail did not tally. This, of course, had nothing to do with the death of the child, but if the jury thought one part of the evidence untrue they might refuse to accept any.

Mary Britton, living next door to the last witness said that she went to bed on Saturday night at 11 o’clock, but did not hear anything of her neighbours. The next morning she was called by Mrs. Cox, and found the deceased lying in bed upstairs. Witness told Mr. Cox to bring the baby down. Mr. Cox then brought the baby down, and she thought he was in a fit, but afterwards saw it was dead. – The Coroner pointed out that the evidence of Mrs. Cox went to show that the father took the child downstairs at once, and yet this witness said that it was upstairs when she went int. – Mrs. Cox was then re-called, but adhered to her statement that the child was downstairs when Mrs. Britton came in. – The jury expressed their opinion that Mrs. Britton’s evidence was correct.

Dr. Baker, Rushden, said that he was fetched early on Sunday morning, and saw the deceased, who was lying downstairs dead. This was at nine o’clock, and he should say the child had been dead from one to two hours. The child was strong and healthy. The face was slightly congested on one side, and the appearance was consistent with suffocation. If there had been any active pressure he would have seen marks. The child might have been pressed against his mother’s breast. The mother told him the same story as she had related to the jury. He thought it was a case of gradual suffocation.

The Coroner, in summing up, said that in overlying cases notice had to be taken of the character of the people, and the description they gave in the evidence. When, however, they found a discord in the minor points it made them think that the major and material points were not true. He thought in the discrepancies that had occurred between the evidence of the man and wife that the latter gave her evidence better than the man. The question was whether the child was accidentally suffocated or actively suffocated, and the dosctor’s evidence seemed to clear this point.

The jury returned a verdict of accidentally suffocated.