Volume 2

A report of the trial of Cooper v. Wakley, for an alleged libel, taken by shorthand writers employed expressly for the occasion; with an engraving of the instruments, and the position of the patient / Together with Mr. B. Cooper's "Prefatory remarks" on the evidence, and a copious explanatory appendix. By Thomas Wakley.

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

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A report of the trial of Cooper v. Wakley, for an alleged libel, taken by shorthand writers employed expressly for the occasion; with an engraving of the instruments, and the position of the patient / Together with Mr. B. Cooper's "Prefatory remarks" on the evidence, and a copious explanatory appendix. By Thomas Wakley. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    20/184 (page 8)
    cerning the said plaintiff as such surgeon as aforesaid, or either of them, to wit, on the 16th day of March, A. D. 1628, in the county aforesaid, the said hospital called Guy’s Hospital, was aud is a certain public hospital, instituted, erected, and endowed, Jor the purpose of receiving therein divers persons suffering under and afflicted with disease; and the said plaintiff, before aud at the time of the composing, writing and publishing the said supposed libels and libellous matters by the said defendant, as in the said declaration mentioned, was and still is one of the surgeons to the said hospital, and had been elected by the Governors of the said hospital as such surgeon from the circumstance of his being a nephew of Sir Astley Cooper, Bart., aud not from any supe- rior qualifications, knowledge, or attainments on his part as a surgeon; and the said defendant further saith, that before and at the time of the committing the said sup- posed grievances, as in the said declaration mentioned, the said defendant was the editor of a certain periodical and critical work called “ The Lancet,” in which said work the said defendant had been used to insert and publish, from time to time, reports of cases and surgical operations which had been performed in the public hospitals of this kingdom by the respective surgeons thereof, for the information of medical and surgical practitioners and persons studying the science of medicine and surgery, and to the great advancement of medical and surgical knowledge; and the said defendant further saith, that before the committing of the said grievances the said Stephen Pollard had been admitted and received into the said hospital, that he might undergo the operation of lithotomy, the said plaintiff, being such surgeon to the said hospital as atoresaid, did, before the committing the said grievances, to wit, on the said l('th day of March, in the year aforesaid, at Westminster aforesaid, perform the said operation of lithotomy on the said Stephen Pollard, before and in the presence of divers, to wit, 200 students and other persons being there and then collected and assembled for the purpose of viewing the said operation on the said Stephen Pollard. And the said defendant further saith, that the said supposed libels and libellous matters in the said declaration mentioned were and are reports of what took place during the said operation, and on the post-mortem examination of the said Stephen Pollard, coupled with critical observations on the manner and want of skill in which the said plaintiff performed the said operation ; and which said report was, before the committing of the said supposed grievances, to wit, on the day and year jn the declaration mentioned, transmitted to the said plaintiff for insertion in the said work called ““ Phe Lancet.” And the said defendant further says, that he, believing the said report and observations to be true, and to contain a fair, impartial, and correct representation of what took place during the said operation and the said post-mortem examination, and that the observations contained in such report were correct, and a fair critique on the manner and waut of skill of the said plaintiff in performing the said operation, and not knowing the contrary thereof, did afterwards, to wit, at the said times when, and in the said de- claration mentioned, at Westminster aforesaid, for the advancement of surgical know- ledge and information, and without malice or ill-will towards the said plaintiff, insert, print, and publish, and cause and procure to be inserted in the said critical work called “<The Lancet,”’ the saidsupposed libels and libellous matters in the said declaration men- tioned. And the said defendant further says, that the said supposed libels and libellous matters in the said declaration mentioned, contained and do contain a true, fair, and correct report in substance of what took place during the said operation, and the post- mortem examination aforesaid, and fair, pertinent, and critical remarks and observa- tions vf and concerning the said plaintiff, as such surgeon, and the manner in which he performed the said operation of lithotomy as aforesaid, to wit, at Westminster aforesaid: and this he, the said defendant, is ready to verify, &c. F, KELLY. ‘The question for the consideration of the jury would be, whether the evidence the defendant might call, substantiated these pleas ; if it did, the verdict would have to be for him, if not, it would have to be for the plaintiff, and then they would have to consider what amount of damages should be given. Sir James Scarlett and Mr. Wakley, the defendant, both rose at the same time, but the latter resumed his seat. ' : Sir James Scarlett then said—My Lord, some of the affirmative issues are thrown upon the plaintiff, who, I understand, this day intends to prove his own skill ! Lord Tenterden—Which of them? Sir James Scarlett—-I will state it to yourLordship:— ‘The plaintiff then and there performed the said operation in an unskilful and unsurgeon-like manner ;”