Report of the trial, Cooper versus Wakley, for libel / from the notes of W.B. Gurney ; with remarks on the evidence, by Bransby B. Cooper.

  • Cooper, Bransby Blake, 1792-1853.
Date:
1829
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report of the trial, Cooper versus Wakley, for libel / from the notes of W.B. Gurney ; with remarks on the evidence, by Bransby B. Cooper. 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.

    171/190 (page 163)
    ica situations in hospitals, that they have no pretensions to fill, that they shall not wade through blood, like great generals, to eminence—return that verdict that shall satisfy the poor, and cast for ever degradation and disgrace upon those hospital surgeons who have had the hardihood to come forward and swear that the operation of Mr. Cooper was performed in a scientific manner, and that they themselves, under similar circumstances, would have acted in a similar way. I have done, Gentlemen. SUMMING UP. Lord Tcntcrden—Gentlemen of the Jury, this is an action brought by the Plaintiff, Mr. Bransby Cooper, against the Defendant, Mr. Wakley, for the publication of what Mr. Cooper alleges to be a false and malicious libel upon himself, and his character and conduct as a professional man, a surgeon generally, and particularly as a surgeon at Guy's Hospital, with respect to an operation he has been stated to have performed. The publications of which Mr. Cooper complains, I think I ought to read to you, as I think they have not yet been very distinctly brought to your attention. The first was published in March, in the present year, and the next, a week, or a little more, afterwards; the first is in these words, Guy's Hospital.— The operation of lithotomy by Mr. Bransby Cooper, which lasted nearly one hour, then there is a note. The following passage occurs in John Bell's great work on surgery—' long and murderous operations where the surgeon labours for an hour in extracting the stone, to the inevitable destruction of the patient. We should be guilty of injustice towards the singularly gifted operator as well as to our numerous readers, if we were to omit ' a full, true, and par- ticular' account of this case. It will doubtless be useful to the country 4 draff' to learn how things are managed by one of the privileged order—a hospital surgeon—nephew and surgeon, and surgeon because he is ' nephew.' The performance of this tragedy was nearly as follows:—Act 1. The pa- tient—to that there is this note, the poor fellow has leff a wife and six children, said he came to town to be operated upon by the ' nevy' of the great Sir Astley, (a labouring man from the county of Sussex, thick set, ruddy and healthy in appearance, and 53 years of age,)—was placed on the operating table at a few minutes past one o'clock on Tuesday the 18th. The only one of the surgical staff present, besides the operator, was Mr. Callaway. The ceremony of binding the patient we need not detail, the straight staff was in- troduced, and was held by Mr. Callaway. The first incision through the integuments appeared to be freely and fairly made, and after a little dissec- tion the point of the knife was fixed (apparently) in the groove of the staff which was now taken hold of, and the knife carried onwards, somewhere— a small quantity of fluid followed the withdrawal of the knife.—It is im- possible to read this without seeing, and such appears to have been the opinion of Mr. Partridge, the first witness called for the Defendant, that this was intended to convey to the mind of the reader that the point of the knife M 2