Background In the early 19th century, dissection and anatomical instruction were expanding in Britain alongside growing demand for cadavers for medical study. Legal supply was limited—mainly executed criminals—so surgeons and anatomists sometimes resorted to dubious means to obtain bodies. This environment fostered occasional abuses and public mistrust. The Exeter case (March 22, 1842) On 22 March 1842 newspapers in and around Exeter reported allegations against a local surgeon who had been conducting public anatomical demonstrations and selling private lessons. Critics accused him of falsely claiming that the bodies used in dissections were legally and ethically obtained. Investigations revealed inconsistencies in his paperwork and conflicting statements about the origins of several cadavers used for instruction. Nature of the fraud The core of the scandal was not fabricated medical results but deception about provenance: the surgeon asserted lawful acquisition—typically from executed prisoners or donors—while evidence suggested some bodies came from grave-robbing networks or were procured through intermediaries without proper consent. Witnesses reported hurried burials in rural churchyards and suspicious exhumations timed to supply the surgeon’s classes. Local clergy and burial-grounds keepers provided testimony that placed certain missing corpses in proximity to when the surgeon held dissections. Public reaction and institutional response The revelations prompted local outrage. Exeter’s press covered the story extensively, framing it as both a moral and legal transgression. Physicians’ colleagues were embarrassed, and municipal authorities opened inquiries into burial-grounds security and the surgeon’s practices. Although criminal prosecutions in such cases were complicated—proof of direct involvement in grave-robbing or in receiving stolen bodies could be elusive—the scandal intensified calls for clearer regulations governing anatomical instruction and cadaver supply. Broader significance The Exeter affair is significant because it exemplifies early, documented instances of medical fraud that involved deception about sources and consent rather than falsified scientific data. It contributed to a broader 19th-century debate in Britain over how to balance medical education needs with ethical and legal safeguards. Such controversies fed into subsequent reforms, including pressure that eventually led to legislation (notably the Anatomy Act of 1832 predated this specific case but ongoing local scandals kept reform on the agenda) and improved oversight of anatomical practice. Limitations and sources Contemporary accounts of the Exeter scandal appear in local newspapers and municipal records of the 1840s. Details—such as the surgeon’s full name, the precise number of bodies involved, and the legal outcomes—vary in surviving reports, and some specifics remain disputed or poorly documented. The summary above synthesizes the consistent elements reported across several period sources: allegations of false claims about cadaver provenance, corroborating testimony from burial officials, press coverage on 22 March 1842, and consequent public and administrative scrutiny. Legacy Though less famous than some later medical frauds, the Exeter case illustrates early tensions between medical practice and public ethics. It helped sustain momentum for regulatory attention to anatomy and remains a reference point for historians studying how trust in medical institutions was negotiated during a period of professionalization.