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.

  • Thomson, Samuel, 1769-1843.
Date:
1839 [©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.

    14/64 (page 8)
    under such crrcomstances. The institution of Government was tor prevent breaches of the peace, and to give protection to individuals against personal wrongs and injuries. Hence the law makes libelling a criminal offence, if attended with malice, and the truth alone con- stitutes no defence, but there must be good motives as well as truth. Such is the law now in every one of the United States. This libel was published first on the 25th January 1S38, and con- tinued for two months, and there were express orders to publish it in the Traveller (newspaper) always under Badger's. Mr. Parker said that he was unacquainted with the Thomsonian System, which formed the subject of the controvejsy between the Defendant and the Prosecutor. It might be a valuable system, and by many citizens it was believed to be a great discovery, and a great blessing to mankind. Dr. Thomson might be fully enti- tled to protection in his discoveries against impostors assuming to practice under his name, but if, in doing so, he published a libel, he must be held answerable for it. He regretted that Mr. Badger had resorted to this prosecution instead of going to the Courts for civil redress, which might have been given him, if he were injured. He had so advised him when he proposed to make his complaint to the Grand Jury, and as this was a personal matter be- tween the two, in which the public were not directly interested, and as Dr. Thomson was fully responsible for any damages that might be recovered, he should have preferred to have seen it take that course. But the complainant saw fit to go to the Grand Jury, where he swore that the hbel was not true, and the Grand Jury, to the best of their knowledge, supposmg it not to be true, found a bill of indictment. Ihe Defendant setting up the truth in justification, had in fact put the prosecutor on trial, and if he made out all the allegations in the hbel to be true, and that it was published with good motives, it would amount to a justification. If the specifications were made out in the defence, it covered the whole ground, otherwise the Jury would be bound to find a verdict against the Defendai>t. Mr. Parker then pro- ceeded to call the witnesses for the prosecution. Paine D. Badger was put upon the stand, and questioned by Mr Parker whether the statements contained in the alleaed libel were *u^ i *? which he answered in the negative. Mr. Parker observed that he had no farther questions to ask. Mr Badger. I 'spose squire Parker, from the nature of the case It would be proper to go through and give a detail, but Dr. Clark is called as an evidence, and got to go out of town ; and as I expect the l^earned counsel will want to examine me pretty close. I should like to have him called first. William Clark then took the stand. He said, Mr. Badger came nlap^ K^A \AT u- ^°*^' ^^^ted the medicine sent to his