The Queen v. Beaney : extraordinary charge of murder against a medical man, in consequence of a diseased womb being ruptured after death : with medical notes and observations / by C.E. Reeves.
- Reeves, C. E. (Charles Evans), 1828-1880
- Date:
- 1866
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The Queen v. Beaney : extraordinary charge of murder against a medical man, in consequence of a diseased womb being ruptured after death : with medical notes and observations / by C.E. Reeves. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
247/259 page 235
![spleen was in a softened state, and that the liver had not been cut up; and it was clear that no proper post-mortem examination had been made; that great pains had to be taken to preserve the uterus, and that the vagina was so rotten that it was cut off. Yes ; the vagina was gone, the ovaries were missing, and a corpus luteum had not been discovered. It would be remembered that Mr. Rudall passed his hand and arm up this missing vagina, and the uterus had lessened in size because it had not been put into spirits. Then, as to a foetus—Dr. Pugh could not swear what the weight of a five- months’ foetus was, yet in a case of this sort it became of importance to ascertain that fact, as well as the exact size of the uterus, which might have contained a fibrous tumour. He (Mr. Aspinall) again asked why had not the parts, as soon as they were taken out of the body, been sent to Professor Halford ? Why were “ glances” deemed to be sufficient in this case 1 Why had not an accurate measurement of the womb been made in Rokeby-street 1 Was that locality so remote that not a piece of string could be obtained ? ' With regard to the placenta, it was evident, even from Dr. Martin’s account of it, that it must occupy some space. It must be obvious that the decidua could not have been there, for it lined nearly the whole cavity. Dr. Martin, it appeared, removed the placenta by sweeping his hand round; and if Dr. Beaney had done the same thing, or attempted to remove a placenta, he would have made the tear in the uterus wider, thus showing that there was no placenta in this case. The last theory of the Crown was that these ruptures had occurred while in the act of removing the placenta. Dr. Martin’s patient had aborted in her fifth month.* He had run the risk of removing the placenta ; his patient had survived the operation, and he had lived to glory at the feat, and to see his name emblazoned in all the newspapers and magazines ; but if his patient had died then, in all probability he would have been consigned to the felon’s dock on a charge of murder, and instead of occupying a witness-box and giving evidence against Dr. Beaney, he might have been on his road to the gallows. He thought the jury had heard enough to compel them to throw the pregnancy theory overboard altogether, but in the rabid desire to supplement their case—to strengthen it by every possible means— they had called a witness who did exactly what they allege Dr. Beaney did, only that their man was successful and Dr. Beaney was not. Assuming their own theory to be correct, was the accused to be tried for murder, convicted, and hanged, because he had not succeeded ] That was the last thing the jury had been asked to do. But, according to their own showing, Dr. Beaney was no more guilty than their own witness. Dr. Martin told them that his At the sixth month.—Vide evidence.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22341869_0249.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
