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
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

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.

    55/64 page 49
    mind against the criminal law of libel. Mr. Hallett replied that, by the same rule no juror ought to sit who had made up his mind that there was such a law. It was a question of evidence as to the existence of the law. Some conversation was had as to the operation of the new Statute which takes away appeals from the Municipal Court as to any matter of fact,— but it was found not to apply to this case. It was then suggested to the Court that the sen« tence ought to be merely nominal ;—that the substance of the alleged libel was the charge that P. D. Badger, in assuming to be a Thomsonian practitioner, was an imposter, and had deceived the public by holding himself out as such, and vending spurious and inferior medicines, as Thomsonian medicines, to the danger of the public, and therefore the Defendant was justified in exposing him ; and that every item in the alleged libel had been proved except the implied charge of breaking open a letter, which it turned out had been done by another person in Badger's establishment The Court had considered this as a case of iraud, but such was not the intent or construction. Judge Tkachcr, in delivering sentence, said, that in the trial of the cause full justice had been done to the system of medical treatment of which Dr. Thomson was the discoverer, and that it was shown and admitted, that this system was widely diffused, but dangerous in the hands of unskillful persons who assumed to practice it and deceive tlie ])ublic under the sanction of his name, it was proved thai the prosecutor (Badger) had assumed the Thomsonian name to give credit to his own practice, and that the manner in which he had availed himself of the reputation and discoveries of Dr. T. were circumstances of strong provocation, he being the inventor of the system now celebrated in various parts of the coun- try, and being fairly emitled to its honors and benefits. It was also obvious that it was only by the use tiie prosecutor (Badger) had made of the name of Dr. Thomson, that he had acquired any celebrity. The whole course of his proceed- ing was holding out to the public that lie (Badger) practiced under the name and sanction of Dr Thomson ; and in his hands it might be not only dangerous to the public, but injurious to the reputation of Dr. T. The Court was free to state this in justice to the Defendant, but though he might have been seriously in- jured, yet the remedy he had pursued was not the right one, and the verdict must be taken as correct. As to the charge of breaking oi)en a letter directed to Dr. Thomson, the impression likely to be produced from the language was, that Mr. B. opened the letter fraudulently and cleared out to avoid an indictment, that w ould grow out of it. With regard to the provocation for the publication, the Court would take it into consideration and impose a light sentence on the ground that it was a private matter of difference which might have been settled in anoth- er mode, and in which the public justice did not require an exemplary punish- ment. The trial had occupied two days, and a portion of the expense must fall on the Commonwealth. The Court had also taken into consideration that Dr. Thomson would not be likely to be distressed by any fine It should impose, but under all the circumstances, the Court would impose a fine ofiifty dollars, and leave the Defendant the right to appeal or apply for a new trial, ^.s the remedy may be open to him. It is stated that the jury stood 8 to 4 on the facts as to the only charge not proved, the letter; and 11 to 1 on the law. The means said to have been resort- ed to by some of the jurors to morally coerce the one who had the independence to maintain his own convictions as to the law, and especially the intimation c>f a proceeding for contempt of Court, were unfortunate and improper. A single juror has a? much right to his honest opinion as all the rest have to theirs. The juror who dissented oi> the law, would not have yield@d his conviction, had hp not understood the Court to say that it was his imperative duty to do so. ■ flMirimi < it^smmmamammmftmiti
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3