Massachusetts spy and Worcester advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1823-1825, 1824-09-08

1
caused him to be stripped. naked an
drenched with cold water. The boy
sister was in the act of coming to Sc
him, nd.met one ofthe defendants ne
the door who had just left him. Th
defendant informedt the sister that he
brother was doing ell and in far
way of recovery, bdt fore she gotino
the house he was dead. Whether is
death was occasioned by the fault Of be
engineer in raising the steam, too hih,
or by condensing the steam too suddn-
ly, by the application of the cold watr,
has never been ascertained.
A witness on the part OF the defod-
ants who called himself doctor, ,ut
said he did not belong to the standing
order, testified that he was well &C
quainted with the rheumatick drops,
(No. 6. He had made for sale 90 orr3o
gallons of the same kind Of medicine,
and had frequently used it and always
with success. The practice of the de-
PENDANTS in the case of the plaintiffs
son was perfectly proper; and he had,
no doubt if they had been permitted to
continue the use of No. 6, with the bay
berry tea and the application of steam,
the patient would have been restored
10 health in very short time. The
natural effect of the medicine was, first
Iy to destroy the use of his limbs, and
then by continuation of the same treat
ment TO restore them to healthy state.
This doctor then detailed at length, to
the court and jury, an instance of a
most remarkable cure, which he had
effected by the same kind of practice.
The doctor was called to lady who
had nervous fever, and found her ap-
parently in the last agonies. When he
arrived she was speeches., and the
blood had settled under her nails. He
Immediately forced her to swallow lit
tie of No. 6, and then raised the steam
upon her and kept it up until she reviv-
ed. lie then continued TO steam her
day and night for three weeks,a caus-
ed her to drink, during the same time,
six quarts daily, of No. 5, (the bayber-
ry tea)-and at the expiration of the
three weeks the lady was restored to
perfect health. Several times during
that period the attendants suffered the
steam TO go down, which.had well nigh
cost the patient her life. At one of
these times she was so far gone, on the
arrival Of the doctor, that there was no
life remaining, except in one foot; bnt
Immediately upon administering No. 6,
and raising the steam, life was restored
10 the rest of her body, and he finally
accomplished her cure as above stated.
Ga his cross.examination, the doctor
stated he had no license TO practise,
under the authority of this state or of
any other state, but he had license to
practise, under the government of the
United States, and he thereupon pro-
duced copy Of The patent and license
from Thompson, authorizing him TO
practise under the same. The doctor
said he had never studied with any
licensed physician, but had learned the
business, from patent doctor, at Pas
samaquoddy, who told him he obtained
his information from another in New
Hampshire Physicians practising IN
der the stale authority had sometimes
been called in 10 consult with the doc
tor in critical cases; and in one case
in particular, a physician Of Geneva
had been called in who did not treat
him civilly; and in consequence of that
the doctor cut his company and would
have nothing to do with him.
Two physicians Of the standing order
were called as witnesses, but as neither
of them were acquainted with the steam
practice, or knew any, thing of the rare
properties of No. 6, as medicine, they
supposed the practice Of the defendant
had injured the patient.
The Judge who tried the cause mus
be a great stickler for state rights; fol
in his charge TO the jury he intilnatec
his opinion pretty strongly, that pa
tent from the United States could no
make good physician Of man witt
had never seen a medical book an,
moreover, that it would not even au
thorize the defendants to practise il
violation of the laws Of this state. An,
although the Judge admitted that til,
decision of the United States' Cour
rendered the use ofsteam free so far a
relates to the propeling of boats, yet h,
seems to think that decision could no
be extended to a case like the present
And as the patent under which the de
PENDANTS claimed did not expressly au
thorize them to practise upon the big
pressure principle it would especial
after the recent disaster at New York
be unwise and improper for the Court
to sanction such practice.
A1d the jury found a verdict for III
- r. Hnnn