122 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



promise to pay a reasonable compensation in addi- 

 tion to statutory fees.''* 



Where there has been no previous arrangement 

 with regard to compensation for expert testimony, 

 there has been some disagreement among the de- 

 cisions. In the English courts it is generally 

 agreed that extra compensation may be taxed.*'' 

 In the case of Webb v. Page it was said,^^ ' ' There 

 is a distinction between the case of a man who 

 sees a fact, and is called to prove it in a court of 

 law, and a man who is selected by a party to give 

 his opinion on a matter on which he is peculiarly 

 conversant from the nature of his em^Dloyment in 

 life. The former is bound, as a matter of public 

 duty, to speak to a fact which happens to have 

 fallen within his own knowledge; without such 

 testimony the course of justice must be stopped. 

 The latter is under no such obligation ; there is no 

 such necessity for his evidence, and the party who 

 selects him must pay him. ' ' In such opinion many 

 American decisions concur.^^ 



On the other hand it has several times been held 

 that the expert is not entitled to extra compensa- 

 tion.^^ Perhaps strictly there may be no essen- 

 tial disagreement from a legal point of view be- 



64 Barrus v. Phaneuf , 166 t^s Summers v. State, 5 Tex. 

 Mass. 123, 44 N. E. 141. App. 365; Ex parte, Dement, 53 



65 Batley v. Kynoek, L. E. 20 Ala. 389 ; State v. Teipner, 36 

 Eq. Cas. 632 ; In re, Laffitte, Minn. 535 ; 32 Minn. 678 ; Lari- 

 L. E. 20 Eq. Cas. 650. mer County Commrs. v. Lee, 3 



«o 1 C. & K. 23. Col. App. 177, 32 Pac. 841 ; 



07 Buchman v. State, 59 liid. Flinn v. Prairie Co.. 60 Ark. 



1, 26 Am. E. 75; Dills v. State, 204, 29 S. W. 459; Dixon v. 



59 Ind. 15; In re Eoelker, 1 People, 168 111. 179. 

 Sprague, 276; U. S. v. Howe, 

 12 Cent. L. J. 193. 



