742 
NEWS AND ITEMS. 
holding himself out as a veterinary surgeon, contracted to be 
possessed of the necessary skill and learning, and it devolved 
upon him to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 
he had acquired and possessed the necessary skill and learn¬ 
ing to practice intelligently and usefully the profession to 
which he claims to belong.” The court goes on to state that 
the well defined principle of law, “ a physician or dentist 
undertakes in law to supplement his reasonable care and hon¬ 
est endeavors with ordinary professional skill,” applies as 
well to the veterinary surgeon, and that there is no presump¬ 
tion of qualification. The plaintiff in the case in point ad¬ 
mitted he had never studied veterinary medicine except 
once during a period of six months when he was incarcerated 
in the State penitentiary at Ionia. “We are not aware,” 
concludes the opinion, “ that it is a part of the punishment 
inflicted on the convicts in that institution to study veterinary 
medicine, nor that a library is furnished them for that pur¬ 
pose. The plaintiff’s education and experience were pecu¬ 
liarly within his own knowledge. It was incumbent on him 
to prove them, not upon the defendant to disprove them. 
His further testimony that he had been engaged in the busi¬ 
ness of a veterinary surgeon for sixteen years did not, it 
would seem, establish his qualification. When a professional 
man sues for services it is necessary for him to prove his quali¬ 
fications by showing his admission to practice under the stat¬ 
ute, his graduation from some reputable college or school, or his 
study and experience if his right to practice is not otherwise 
regulated. If the plaintiff was simply a quack, without edu¬ 
cation or experience, and was employed by the defendant 
upon the representation that he was a qualified veterinary 
surgeon he could not recover.” This is the first decision on 
this specific point of which The Horseman has knowledge, and 
that it should have been rendered in a suit involving only the 
paltry sum of three dollars and fifty cents is practically inex¬ 
plicable. The fact, however, remains that the supreme court 
of Michigan has held in good set terms that a quack can not 
recover for worthless services rendered. The effect of the 
decision is even more far-reaching. If a quack can not re¬ 
cover for services that do not result favorably he can not re¬ 
cover for services that may tend toward the saving of a valu¬ 
able horse’s life. In short, under this decision no owner of 
horses who is imposed on by a quack veterinarian need pay 
him a cent, and in the case of a suit being brought it will be 
necessary for the quack to prove his claims to being con¬ 
sidered a veterinary surgeon in the true meaning of that 
term.— The Chicago Horseman. 
