Qj (D • lt;t lt;-*- -t. O cnCP tZ2A U«‘iil) from Or. Tlornor.Kill tor Record~I beg leave to say to the signers of the petition to me published in your last issue, that on the day of the killing of Mr. Chevalier I looked the ground over carefully and came to ’he conclusion that it was unneces-, sary to put the county to the expense afvan inquest, and urther, that such a procedure would be u warranted in lawJ The statutes say that “the coroner shall hold an inquest upon the dead bodies of such persona only as 11 are supposed to have died by unlaw- | ] ful means, or the cause of whose deathis unknown.”Again, a coroner’s jury is supposed to be called for the purpose only of 11 stating, “when, .how and by what person, means, or weapon or accident I he or she came to his or her death,1 and whether feloniously.”As all these facts are common knowledge, I still deem it not prudent ] lt;to put Douglas county to an expense ot from $50 to $100 to have a jury of six men restate the facts.The petitioners want to “fix if possible, responsibility for his death ’ 11This I conceive to be no part of the duty of the coroner but the province | lt;of other courts.If, as has been urged, the men operating the train by which Mr. Chevalier was killed were running at a rate of speed prohibited by a city ordinance, it is clearly the duty of city oflicials, and not of the coroner, to prosecute for that offence.The jury empanelled by me in the Craigmile inquest a year ago last winter recommended the passage and enforcement of the ordinance now in force, and I think a jury in this case could do nothing more than recommend its enforcement.Very respectfully,Lkvi Hornor,Coroner Douglas Co.(