Report of the trial of Dr. Samuel Thomson, the founder of the Thomsonian practice, for an alleged libel in warning the public against the impositions of Paine D. Badger, as a Thomsonian physician sailing under false colors, before Judge Thacher, in the Municipal Court of Boston, April term, 1839.

Samuel Thomson

Date:: 1839

Credit: Report of the trial of Dr. Samuel Thomson, the founder of the Thomsonian practice, for an alleged libel in warning the public against the impositions of Paine D. Badger, as a Thomsonian physician sailing under false colors, before Judge Thacher, in the Municipal Court of Boston, April term, 1839. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

39/64 page 33

$false pretences to deceive the public as to his genuine chaa-^eter and pretensions,* Mr. Hallett then gave a rapid view of the allegations in the alleged libel and the proofs to sustain thetriv Th-ey were resolved into three charges; first, imposition ; second, opening a letter, third., clearing out to escape an indictment. Under the head of imposition were several specifications. The article began wkh warning the public against impostors—meaning all who falsely sold Thomsonian medicines; and if the jury were satisfied that Badger had played the part of ati impostor,, it would cover the whole ground of that portion of the publication. That he had done so, was already shown by-the history given of his proceedings; but the Defendant had gone further, and literally proved every specifica- tion under this heaxl, 1st, Badger is proved to have resMmerf5mposition in this city; by continuing to sell his own medicines with the same Thomsonian labels which were attached to them when ire was here before; and by hold- ing out to the public the brilliant success that had always attended h\s practice: thus referring directly to his former practice, when he imposed himself upon the public as an agent of Dr. Thomson and vender ©f the medicines prepared by him. Mark, Gentlemen of the Jury, the word resumed; and if you believe that he practiced im- f)osition when in Boston the first time, you must believe that he adver- tised his intention to practice the same imposition again. He now swears to you that people call at his shop for the Thomsonian medi- cines, and he tells them he sells the pure Thomsonian medicine] What is this but resuming imposition? 2d_, He is proved to have strove hard to sail under the Thomsonian €ag. He net only sailed under that flag^ both here and at Nashua, tintil his piracy was exposed, but after making gciin and profit, as -the indictment says, by speculating on Dr. Thomson's fame, he made 4he most of his stolen flag by selling it out here and hoisting another of the same sort for himself in Nashua. He held himself out as a pure Thomsonian doctor, says Mr. Magoon. He ga^e me to under- •stand he was an Agent of Dr. Thomson, says Mr. Osgood; and so on, through his whole career. Why, Gentlemen, what honest flag of his otDn has he ever had to sail under, that would have kept him afloat a ■moment? And yet he complains that he is exposed in his true colors, so that he can no longer make gains and profit by living on the <iredit of Dr. Thomson's discoveries! * The rule laid down by Judge Quincy (now President of Harvard University,) in the case -of the Commonwealth »5. Bucliingham for a libel on J. N. Maffitt, is the most sensible and the best sustained of any judicial construction of the law •of libe]. He says, I apprehend the Defendant has a right to aequita:! if he sub- stantiate to a jury the truth of such of the charges, either in nature or number, as shall saitlsfy them ihat the facts proved justified such an attack, on grave and ■weighty grounds of public interest; and if he also satisfy the Jury, with respect to those allegations which he shall fail to prove, that he had reasonable ground for them, and that they were not made from base and malignant motives. The great ground of defence is the right, growing out of the nature of the facts proved, to drag that individual to the bar of public opinion and destroy his sjjfluence. 5$