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.
56/259 (page 44)
![to my house to examine the womband after observing “ that the womb was thin at one part”—and something more which Mr. Rudall forgot, namely, “Is it not softened —“ he (Mr. Beaney) said, ‘I will just take a piece of this for microscopic examination.’ I don’t think I made any remark. I did not offer any objection to his doing so.” Q. Did he take it 1 A. Yes; a very small portion. Q. Did you see where he took it from 1 A. I did not see exactly where he took it from. Q. Did he take it from the inner surface ? A. I am nearly sure he took it from the inner surface of the womb. Q. What size was it ? A. I could not say accurately; but I am satisfied it was a very small piece. Q. Did he take it right through the substance of the womb, or a portion of the surface h A. I believe it could not be right through the substance of the womb. Q. What did he take it with ] A. Either with a knife, or a pair of scissors, or the forceps lying on the table. Q. What did you examine while he was there ? A. We looked at the inner surface of the womb and at the rupture. We made a section of a piece, I am nearly sure, before he left, of the inner portion of the womb. I cut a very fine piece of the womb, to put under the microscope. The insinuation that it was “either with a knife or a pair of scissors” was worthy of the men who concocted it, and perfectly consistent with their conduct throughout the whole case. They first charged him with procuring abortion, and in removing the foetus with his hand on the Wednesday night, then rupturing the vagina and womb. Finding this charge untenable, at the second trial they indicted him for doing a perfectly lawful act, as Mr. Aspinall justly observed, namely, removing the placenta, which cannot be called producing](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22341869_0058.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
