COMPENSATION 117 
ices.4* It is to be presumed, however, that attor- 
neys would be much better able to testify as to the 
facts of usage than the layman, and for that reason 
it has also been held that laymen are not compe- 
tent witnesses in such a matter.” Also, it has been 
held that a defendant, if not an attorney, is incom- 
petent as a witness as to the value of a lawyer’s 
services.*® It has also been held that the usage in 
the ordinary place of business of a consultant, 
rather than that where services are rendered, 
should govern; for in the absence of an agreement 
beforehand the consultant has a right to expect 
to receive his usual fee. So, ‘‘A lawyer residing 
in another state, where another lawyer resides, 
is competent to testify as to the value of the legal 
services rendered by the latter, rather than an at- 
torney living in such latter state.’’ 4° 
88. Definition and Scope of Expert Testimony. 
The following rules, taken from ‘‘The Law of Ex- 
pert and Opinion Evidence,’’ by Lawson (1900), 
give the facts so clearly and concisely that they 
are here quoted. 
“Rule 35.5° An expert is a person having spe- 
cial knowledge and skill in the particular calling 
to which the inquiry relates.”’ 
“Rule 36.5! Therefore, to render the opinion 
of a witness admissible on the ground that it is 
the opinion of an expert, the witness must have 
46 Hart v. Vidal, 6 Cal. 56. 49 Stanberry v. Dickerson, 35 
47 McNiel v. Davidson, 37 Iowa 493. 
Ind. 336. 50 p. 229. 
48 Howell v. Smith, 108 Mich. 51p, 231. 
350, 66 N. W. 218. 
