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.

    80/190 (page 72)
    Juryman. — He stated he made a post mortem examination of the morbid parts. Lord Tenterden.—I will refer to my notes, and read over that part.— {Here his Lordship read the whole evidence of the witness.) Juryman.—I wanted to know whether that post mortem examination was made before, or after furnishing the Defendant with the report of the operation ?—After. Lord Tenter den.—It must have been after. Juryman.—In the part your Lordship has just now come to, he states there was a very unusual appearance on the under part of the neck of the bladder. Lord Tenterden.—I have not come to that yet, I am coming to it. I found the prostate gland itself slightly larger than a natural one—slightly larger than ordinary. I found on the left side of the gland a small oblique cut j the parts appeared to be what we call ecchymose, and seemed to have been bruised a good deal, and darkened the cellular membrane; on the under surface of the neck of the bladder there was a very singular appear- ance ; there was a little projection about the size of the tip of my little finger. I took this to be an enlargement of the third lobe of the prostate gland. Juryman.—As I am not an anatomist, I beg to ask, is he of opinion that this projection and enlargement could not have caused the obstruction in the first part of the operation in introducing the forceps?—If I am asked my opinion I should say not, if I may be allowed to explain Sir James Scarlett.—You will not have the trouble, geutlemen, of con- sidering that subject, I assure you. Lord Tenterden.—You think that that little projection did not cause the obstruction in the first part of the operation in introducing the forceps ?— Yes, provided the cut was made in the usual and proper manner. Juryman.—I beg also to ask whether this projection might not have occa- sioned the trickling rather than the gushing out of the liquid contents of the bladder ?—I think not. Sir James Scarlett.—As Mr. Lambert is there, I should wish to put a few questions which I omitted yesterday. Lord Tenterden.—You must put them through me, for regularity. Sir James Scarlett.—Whether he communicated to the Morning Herald and the Times Newspapers any particulars of this report on or before the 29th day of March, the day when it was first published in the Lancet, or any body connected with him ?—Certainly not, neither do I know how it came there. You do not know how the notices came into those papers ?—No, I do not. Are you aware that notices did come out in the Times and Morning Herald respecting this operation ?—I saw it in the Times. I did not see it in the Herald. ' Mr. Wakley.—l wish merely to ask if he has the slightest reason to believe that those notices were transmitted by me ? Lord Tenterden.—He cannot know that. Mr. Wakley.—Whether he has any reason to believe it i