by Sue Young

This case of John Ozanne is quite interesting, as this should still be on the Law statutes:

In 1849, John Ozanne took out a libel action against Dr Lisle (full description of the case in John Ozanne's blog). He was involved in a dispute with Dr. De Beauviour de Lisle, an allopathic physician, who abused him verbally because he was a homeopath in front of his patient.

The Jury at Guernsey Royal Court lost no time in upholding John Ozanne’s defence and in fining the prejudiced Mr Lisle £35 10 shillings plus costs, and damages of 5 shillings to John Ozanne and 2shillings and 6 pence to the Queen. John Forbes and William Henderson of the University of Edinburgh came to give evidence for John Ozanne’s defence.

The Queen’s Comptroller explained that the Law presumed malice when the words used were insulting. As John Ozanne was not claiming financial damages, he was claiming reparation for the insult offered to him. The words spoken were injurious, and they were spoken without provocation.

The merits of homeopathy had nothing to do with the case, and the assertion that homeopathy was condenmed by the allopaths was ‘no defense whatsoever’.

The Queen’s Comptroller was surprised that:

‘The practitioners of medicine, above all men, ought to hesitate in pronouncing positive opinions on the science they professed. That science was, more than any other, undefined in its principles......

The Queen’s Comptroller condemned the allopathic witnesses who condemned without authority, study or in most cases, knowledge of homeopathy, and when pressed most of them did not even know what homeopathy was. Their opinons therefore, were worthless.

The articles and publications read before the court defaming homeopathy were ‘a mass of scurrilous expressions of party feeling which was entitled to no attention‘.

The authorities who were better informed on this subject, such as the celebrated John Forbes, admitted that it was ‘but simple justice to admit that Hahnemann was a man of profound learning and perfect integrity, and that many of his disciples were sincere, honest and learned men‘.

The Baliff declared that the words charged in the action had been proved. Had De Lisle confined himself to claiming that homeopathy was quackery and not applied those terms to John Ozanne, and that using this Court case to defame homeopathy was not applicable. De Lisle used his words to defame John Ozanne, which were not justified.