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.

    34/190 (page 26)
    20 Have you a considerable acquaintance with Mr. Wakley ?—-No ; I have not. You have known him some years?—No, I have not. What brought you to town on this occasion ?—I came to pass the college. Did you go to Guy's Hospital from curiosity ?—No. 1 went to be in- structed. Lord Tenterden.—You were a pupil ?—Yes. Sir James Scarlett.—Why did not you wait till the end of the operation to see if the stone was extracted ?—My feelings would not permit me. Did you see the report before it was printed ?—No, Sir James, I did not. Did you hear of it ?—No. You were in London at the time it was printed ?—Yes ; I saw it after it was in print, because I take in the Lancet. You had not seen Mr. Wakley in the mean time ?—No, I had not. Now you have given a very succinct account of this; you rather jump from the first to the second cut: but I should consider he had altogether missed the bladder the first cut ?—He could not touch the bladder by the first incision. I do not mean opening the integuments, but the first incision by the knife; are you of opinion that he reached the bladder or not ?—He did not reach the bladder the first incision, and ought not. Is the first incision cutting into the urethra?—No. What then ?—You have to avoid the urethra at the first cut. What are you to do ?—To lay open the integuments. Then you cut the flesh ?—The skin and fat. Then what are you to do ?—Then you are to put your finger in ; you cut the muscle and pass the finger in to avoid a certain part of the urethra; then you feel for the groove of the staff that is in the penis. You say the first incision was not intended to touch the urethra, or the bladder, but you say the second; and you say the second did not?—Yes; it did not. And that was made with unnecessary force and violence ?—Not the inci- sion. The incision that ought to have reached the bladder you are sure did not ? I am sure it did not. 1 cannot swear it did not. 1 was all in the dark. I was not in front of the patient to see where the incisions were made. What makes you speak so confidently as you have ; you have spoken with great confidence; why should you speak with so much confidence upon your oath ?—For this reason, why did he not extract the stone when he passed so many instruments in ? Lord Tenterden.—The reason for -your saying he did not cut the bladder was that he did not extract the stsne ?—Yes, and there was no flow of urine that I saw. Sir James Scarlett.—-If any body has sworn that he saw a flow of urine he must have said what is false ?—I should think so. If the first two of Mr. Wakley's witnesses have said there was a flow of urine, they must be perjured ?—I did not hear them.* • Two of this gentleman's fellow-witnesses, Mr. Partridge ami Mr. Clapham, swore that the bladder was opened on the first incision, and that urine followed.