COMPENSATION 93 



practicing as an apothecary.'* The onus of proof 

 is upon the holder to show that he has a license.^ 

 Similarly in this country it has been held that 

 a physician or surgeon cannot recover pay for his 

 services without proof of his license to practice.^ 

 However, it has also been held that the fact of 

 his employment is a recognition of his capacity, 

 relieving him, in an action to recover for his fees, 

 of the duty of producing his license, and throwing 

 the burden of proof upon the defendant.'^ Both of 

 these opinions should be taken together in order 

 to get a reasonable interpretation. The fact of 

 employment should be accepted as an evidence of 

 the legal competency of the practitioner, and the 

 defendant in a suit for fees should not be per- 

 mitted to impede justice by setting up a tech- 

 nical objection, forcing the plaintiff to produce 

 his license, or evidence of registration. If he 

 undertakes to avoid jDajmient of his obligation by 

 claiming that the practitioner is not legally quali- 

 fied, he should be forced to present evidence to 

 that effect. It would then become incumbent 

 upon the plaintiff to produce the license itself 

 (§37), or, where registration only is required, to 

 produce evidence that he had legally been 

 registered. 



72. Right to Sue for Fees. According to the 

 old English custom a physician was supposed to 

 **give" his services, and his clients returned the 



* Brown v. Robinson, 1 C. & Har. 144; Bower v. Smith, 8 



P. 264. Ga. 74. 



5 Apothecaries ' Co. v. Bent- ^ Prevosty v. Nichols, 1 1 

 ley, 1 C. & P. 538. Mart. O. S. 21; Dickenson v. 



6 Adams' Adm. v. Stewart, 5 Gordy, 5 Rob. (La.) 489. 



