Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1821-06-12
MEDICAL QUACKERY.
Court of Kings Bench, March Is.

Court OF Kings Bench, March l6
Rymer vs.Ksece, ~ d.
The trial of this case produced mu|
fun and merriment in the court ri ?
plaintiff was a practising surgeon a,
apothecary at Keigate, in Sussex, hayir
been in the year 1850, surgeon on boa,
man of war, and now enjoying half p,
in that respect. In the month of Ju,
1902, he took outa patent for his Cardl
and Nervous Tincture, the basis of whi
consisted OF brandy and Madeira, vii
the maeeration OF a long list of simple
and all the spices OF Arabia Felix. IT'D
prospectus OF the invention contained
proGigiousiy long catalogue of its VIRTUES
and the diseases which 1T was calculatsI
to cure. No less than 10 diseases, OF I'd
most opposite qualities, would give wy
to its S native influence, it was diaphorl
tic, tebrifuge, tonic, a menagogue,
sedative, cePhalic, good for dlspepsi,
an aperient, a stimuiant, corroborativev
an aromatic; in short it was panacea forI
all Imaginable diseases incident to thehu
man frame, both mental and bodily, in
ali climates; nay, it was an infallible cure
for sudden death!
In THE Gazette of Health, the defend
ant, who stated to be the proprietor d
that work, and a gentleman of some ceie
brity with reference to the Prophecies
Johanna Southcott, published criticism
on the plaintiffs medicine and the empi
ricism of his prospectus containing also
some observations In ridicuie ofthe plain.
tiff's assuming the dignity of Eyqsrs-
There was good deal OF humor in the
criticism, the principal object of which
appeared to be rather to point out the in
furious consequence of the plaintiff nos,
trum, if taken in all the diseases for
which it was held forth as an intallibls
cure, particularly in febrile and inaam.
matory diseases, than to impute any thing
noxious to the medicine itself, if taken as
a tonic in certain cases. The plaintiffs
patent had long since expired, and of late
years the sale Of his medicine had greatly
decreased.
The Chief Justice permitted evidence
to be received, that the plaintiffs medi.
cine was used in certain diseases, that be-
ing part of his allegation in the declars
ton. After this Mr.. Scarlet addressed
the Jury, he treated the action as one de-
serving contempt and derision. Had we
lived to this day, and notorious quacks
be permitted to bring actions for criticisms
upon the nostrums Were men Of science
to be brought before Courts of Justice
for ridiculing their empiricism and point
ing out to the unwary the hazard of taking
their deleterious drugs? This gentleman
had sent forth into the world panacea for
all disorders of the most opposite symp
toms and qualities, holding out health and
vigor to the patient in cases, where the
medicine might produce sudden death,
and was not a man of science to be at IL
berty to detect the imposition, and warn
the public against the danger they incur
redP Such erratic publications were ofvast
public benefit, because they enabled per,
sons who had access to large medical and
scientific libraries, to detect fraud and
impositions. The supposed libel was
nothing more than fair criticism upon
the plaintiffs quackery, and if it was
mixed with a little ridicule, it was the
more likely to be salutary in its effect
In this point of view the case fell precise
ly within the rule laid down by Lord FL
lenborough, in Sir John Carr, VS.. Hood,
in which the plaintiff was ridiculed as
the ja&nting-car.-In that case witness
was called to prove, that in consequence
of reading criticism in the Edinburgh
Review, upon the plaintiffs book, he had
declined reading his works, upon which
the learned Judge congratulated him up
on the escape he bad, told him that he
was the better for it. So in this case,
how many people must be the better fox
not taking the plaintiffs nostrum, in con
sequence of the warning voice of the de-
fendant9 The plaintiff protested to cure
|lEL>-,.