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.
249/259 page 237
![so in the present case ? Then, if he were not satisfied with his own examination, how could the jury be expected to be satisfied? Taking the very harshest view of the case against the accused, the whole of the evidence was far more consistent with the innocence than with the guilt of the accused ; but in the minds of an impartial jury he (Mr. A.) was satisfied it would thoroughly establish Dr. Beaney’s innocence. Again, he would ask what had become of the immense flow of blood that all agree must have ensued from such ruptures ? The blood that had been discharged by the deceased into the chamber- vessel was a very small quantity, and was believed by the women who saw it to be menstrual blood. With regard to the areola, it had been admitted that, although generally strongly marked in women who had dark hair like the deceased, yet it was very faint and indistinct, and was of very little value after a first pregnancy ; so much, therefore, for another of the “ symptoms” of pregnancy. Dr. Pugh had admitted that the lining of the womb resembled in appearance that arising from menstruation.* [The Crown Prosecutor denied that Dr. Pugh had stated this.] He (Mr. A.) understood him to admit it : and not only could he point out to almost any length the inconsistencies and discrepancies existing between the witnesses for the Crown, but he could call on Dr. Beaney’s behalf a number of medical men, whom the jury saw in Court, to rebut their statements and to further establish the inno- cence of the defendant. Could the jury arrive at any other con- clusion but that the accused was an innocent man ? He (Mr. A.) could not believe it to be possible that one man in twelve could be found who would not at once acquit him. Did not all the circum- stances of the case go towards proving his innocence, notwithstanding all the bag and other theories of the Crown, and the opinions of their witnesses ? Not only had the deceased’s pregnancy not been established, but the Crown had failed to show even the cause of death, as the ruptures might have taken place (as they no doubt did) after death. What could the jury do ? Why they were bound to acquit him, and he asked them to do so promptly, and without leaving the box. If they did not, what doctor could practice his profession in safety ? Not only the medical testimony, but also the lay evidence, went to establish the innocence of the accused. What was there in it against him? Where was the motive or inducement for him to commit such a crime ? If he had been a poor starveling in the profession instead of being eminent, and had suspicious interviews with a girl’s rich friend, there might have been some ground for suspecting a motive, but in this case it was not possible to discover any. No * He said he did not know the difference between a womb during men- struation and during abortion.— Vide cross-examination.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22341869_0251.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
