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 employment 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.*8 Perhaps strictly there may be no essen- 
tial disagreement from a legal point of view be- 
64Barrus v. Phaneuf, 166 
Mass. 123, 44 N. E. 141. 
65 Batley v. Kynock, L. R. 20 
Eq. Cas. 632; In re, Laffitte, 
L. R. 20 Eq. Cas. 650. 
661C. & K, 238. 
67 Buchman v. State, 59 Ind. 
1, 26 Am. R. 75; Dills v. State, 
59 Ind. 15; In re Roelker, 1 
Sprague, 276; U. S. v. Howe, 
12 Cent. L. J. 1938. 
68 Summers v. State, 5 Tex. 
App. 365; Ex parte, Dement, 53 
Ala. 389; State v. Teipner, 36 
Minn, 535; 32 Minn. 678; Lari- 
mer County Commrs. v. Lee, 3 
Col. App. 177, 32 Pac. 841; 
Flinn v. Prairie Co.. 60 Ark. 
204, 29 8. W. 459; Dixon v. 
People, 168 Tl. 179. 
