Lipscombe _v._ Holmes, esq. (From Campbell.) This was an action for work and labour as a surgeon, and for curing the defendant and several persons of his family, of divers diseases and maladies, under which they had respectively laboured and languished. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and paid 3_l_ 13_s_ 6_d_ into court. The first defence set up was, that the plaintiff was a physician, and therefore could not maintain an action for his fees. It appeared that he wrote prescriptions, was called “_Doctor_,” and signed himself M. D. _Park_ said he should shew, that at the time when the visits were paid, for which the action was brought, the plaintiff was only a surgeon; and that he had not taken out his diploma as a physician till long after. Lord _Ellenborough_.—If a person passes himself off as a physician, he must take the character _cum onere_. When he brings an action for visits paid by him as a physician, I will give him credit for being so, and tell him he must trust to the honour of his patients. Whether the plaintiff had or had not a diploma when he attended the defendant, is immaterial. Whatever he was, if he at that time wrote prescriptions and added M. D. to his name, he must be nonsuited. _Park_ then produced the rule for paying money into court, which his lordship thought removed the objection, and admitted the plaintiff’s right to sue as a surgeon. It was afterwards agreed to withdraw a juror. ------- Slater _v._ Baker and Stapleton, C. B. (From 2 Wils. R. 359.)