COMPENSATION 123 
tween these apparently conflicting statements. As 
we remarked above, when a physician, a veterina- 
rian, or other expert, makes an examination to 
enable him to give expert testimony, as by per- 
forming a post mortem examination, he becomes 
a witness of fact, and as such can be compelled to 
testify without extra compensation. However, the 
party requesting a veterinarian to examine and 
treat his animals is thereby putting himself under 
obligations to pay a reasonable sum for the serv- 
ices rendered; and the reasonable sum must de- 
pend upon the character of the services rendered. 
On this same basis the man who is asked to make 
an examination as a preliminary to giving expert 
testimony has a legal right to expect compensa- 
tion for his services as an expert.°®? Though this 
compensation may not be included in the fees 
taxed by the court in which the expert evidence 
has been given, apparently the witness may have 
therein ground for action against the person en- 
gaging his services, where there is no law to the 
contrary. It seems reasonable, also, that a dis- 
tinction should be made between cases in which 
the community needs the services of an expert in 
criminal prosecutions, and those in which his serv- 
ices are required for the benefit of parties engaged 
in civil suits. 
Several states have enacted statutes providing 
that witnesses called to testify only on an opinion, 
founded upon special study or experience, shall 
receive additional compensation to be fixed by the 
court. Such statutes are found in Iowa, North 
69 Barrus v. Phaneuf, 166 
Mass. 123, 44 N. E. 141. 
