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
Catalogue details

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.

    64/259 (page 52)
    nesses—Drs. Rankin and Smith, and Mrs. and Miss Cronan—are to be believed, be wrong to think that Dr. Wilkie really was mistaken in the person. If the proofs adduced by Dr. Rankin and Dr. Smith of her pregnancy are considered, they are nearly as valuable as those of Dr. Wilkie as to her being the person who applied to him. When she consulted the former on the 9th of January, he did not take the trouble to determine whether the discharge was copious or not, thick or thin, white or yellow, tinged or not with blood, or offensive or not. He seems to have treated her as a gratuitous patient, for he kept most irregular notes of the times he saw her; and it is rather to the prescriptions in the possession of the chemist than to his memory of any details as to what he prescribed and when he saw her, that any coherent history can be made out. In the first or second week of February “ she had not seen anything” for six weeks, and then wished him to prescribe something stronger for her. He said—“ ‘ I hope you have used no means for suppressing the discharge /’ She laughed. I then told her what I thought of her symptoms, and I proposed to examine her breasts; this she refused, saying, ‘ It did not matter.’ I then said, 11 cannot prescribe for you any longer, and I hope you will not continue taking the medicines I prescribed for you ’ (aloes and myrrh with oil of savin).” Dr. L. L. Smith saw her on the 3rd of March. “ She asked me,” he said, “ to determine whether she was in the family-'way or not 1 To the best of my belief she was. I examined her partially (i.e., introduced his finger and felt the mouth of the womb). She appeared to be three months gone. I did not examine her with the speculum.* She asked me if I could procure abortion for her. I told her I could not. I saw her subsequently about a week after. She came to persuade me to re- consider my judgment. I dissuaded her from it.” At the close of the first trial a very important witness, of the name of Esse, called on Mr. Duffett, Mr. Beaney’s solicitor. He informed him “ That he went to live as barman at the hotel in which Mary Lewis was barmaid, on the 2nd of February last, and remained there until April, when the landlord left. He noticed soon after he went that * This gentleman considered that an examination with the speculum was the only means by which the existence of pregnancy could he determined. He had, he said, at the last trial been prosecuted for using the speculum, and had therefore abandoned it. Mr. Aspinall. Dr. Barker got up that prosecution ? [The witness only smiled seraphically, and looked at the worthy doctor.]