COMPENSATION 121 



decision; but having made such an examination 

 he becomes a witness of fact, and may be com- 

 pelled to testify as to the result of the examination 

 made by him.'^^ jj^ made his decision as to testi- 

 fying when he made the examination. 



We have previously said that a witness should 

 be impartial. Too frequently both witness and 

 spectators seem to imagine that an expert, like 

 an attorney, is hired to get one side out of trouble. 

 Theoretically this should not even be true of the 

 lawyer. He is an officer of the court to secure 

 justice; but since he is opposed by contending 

 counsel, justice can only be secured when each side 

 is presented in its strongest color. This excuse 

 does not avail for biased testimony, whether of 

 fact or of expert opinion. The witness is sworn 

 to tell the truth. A contract with an expert wit- 

 ness for compensation, conditional on the success 

 of the suit in which he is to testify, is void, as 

 against public policy.''^ It should be sufficient 

 grounds foir impeaching the expert's entire tes- 

 timony, for it throws doubt upon the honesty of 

 his opinion, and raises a suspicion that there may 

 have been imposition upon the court of a plea for 

 a client, disguised as evidence. It is such unlawful 

 abuse of privilege which has tended to bring re- 

 proach upon the name of expert testimony in 

 American courts. 



An agreement by one to go into court at a future 

 day and testify as an expert in regard to a matter 

 which he had examined as a civil engineer (or as 

 a veterinarian), is sufficient consideration for a 



62 Summers v. State, 5 Tex. es Pollak v. Gregory, 9 



App. 365. Bosw. 116. 



