#### Jeffries v. Harris.

From Person.

1n assumpsit by aPhysician for his services, Defendant shall not call witnesses to prove the general character of Plaintiff as a Physició~n.

~ssvan~psit for services as a Physibian.-Defendant ca1Ie~ a witness, a I'Iiysician, to prove the general character of the Plaintiff as a Physician; the Court rejected the testimony, but permitted Defendant to show, that the Plaintiff had not been regularly educated as a Physician.

The imp~opei~ rejection of evidence, formed the ground of a motion for a new trial below, and was one question presented to this Coert, on the appeal of the Defendant.

Another question was presented on the affidavit of the Plaintiff, made under the 10 sec. of the act of 1777, eh. 115,.N'ew Re~,;

Taylor, Chief-Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court

The affidavit filed by the Plaintiff, i~ within the very terms of the act of 1777, sec. 10, and entitles him to jud~rnent for the sum really proved.

The evidence, as to the PlaintitF's general character as a Physician, was properly rejected. Charactpr wa~ ~ot put in issue by the nature of this action, and the Defendant is eciuaily lia1~le on his assun)psit, whether *106the Plaintiff’s character were good or bad; for, if he chose to employ him as a Physician, it is not competent to him, afterwards, to say that he is not a good one, therefore, that he will not pay him. If, indeed, the Plaintiff had imposed on the Defendant by false pretensions to skill, he would have beeii responsible for any injury done him ; but, in this case, the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for his skill and labour, whatever they might be. — The judgment must be affirmed.