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 payment 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 
4Brown v. Robinson, 1 C. & Har. 144; Bower v. Smith, 8 
P. 264. Ga. 74. 
5 Apothecaries’ Co. v. Bent- 7Prevosty v. Nichols, 11 
ley, 1 C. & P. 538. Mart. O. 8. 21; Dickenson v. 
6 Adams’ Adm. v. Stewart, 5 Gordy, 5 Rob. (La.) 489. 
