136 



JOUBNAL OF HORTICULTUBE AND COTTAGE GAEDENEB. [ February 18, 1869. 



Any other VAniETY— 1, Miss Crosbie. 2, J. Campbell, Lanoboliu 

 (Magpies), he, H. Ynrdley. 



, Seliing Class.— 1, W. R. Park (Fantails), 2, J. WaddelJ (Jacobins). 

 Jddoe. — James Dickson, Esq., Bradford. 



ANTWERP PIGEONS. 



In the course of some remarks upon the Antwerp Pigeon 

 Mr. Huie says that it cannot be accepted aa a "fancy bird 

 worthy of cultivation," because it is " cross-bred." The ma- 

 jority of fancy Pigeons now exhibited are the result of cross- 

 breeding ; and it is by cultivating and developing some pecu- 

 liarity in shape or markings, produced by mating birds of 

 different breeds, that new varieties are produced. The points 

 of Antwerps are as definite as those of any other variety, and 

 the birds breed very true to colour, shape, and size. I have 

 bred them many years, and for an experiment have tried several 

 crosses, but the youDg produced have invariably lost the com- 

 pact and beautiful shape, so striking to the eye of a fancier in 

 the true Antwerp. 



The first birds of the breed I ever saw were brought to this 

 country by a dealer in German Canaries. They were mostly 

 Blue and Blue Chequers, with a few Duns, resembling each 

 other very closely in size and general appearance, and were 

 quite different from any of our English birds. The only breed 

 at all resembling them was the Skinnum, but the birds differed 

 widely in the shape of the head and in general outline. 



The Antwerp may not make headway in Scotland, but it is 

 fast making headway here, and its many excellent qualities 

 render it a great pet with those who keep it. As a nurse and 

 as a homing bird it has no superior; it is also beautifully 

 feathered, and I have no doubt Antwerps will before long be 

 one of the strongest classes at our shows, as wherever prizes are 

 offered the breed is invariably well represented. If being cross- 

 bred is the only objection that can be raised against it, I do 

 not see why it should not take the same position as Dragoons 

 and other established cross-breeds. — B. F. C. 



STAINED CANARIES. 



Havino for some time past been a reader of your paper, I 

 have observed that judges, committees, and exhibitors at shows 

 are getting somewhat at "loggerheads," and I think it is high 

 time that a better understanding should be come lo between 

 them. With this view, I send you an Ipswich newspaper, 

 by which you will see that I was an exhibitor of Canaries at the 

 last Lowestoft Poultry and Bird Show, and that the Judges 

 awarded me some few prizes, by which I became entitled to 

 the cup ; but a protest was afterwards sent in to the Committee. 

 that my birds were artificially coloured, in consequence of 

 which protest the awards were taken from me, and given to 

 ^he next exhibitor on the list, who turned oat to be the pro- 

 teeter. 



On hearing this, I sent in a statement to the Committee 

 that my birds were not artificially coloured, and that I should 

 expect to have all that had been awarded to me. I received in 

 reply that the Committee intended to abide by the decision of 

 the Judges— which, according to the rules of the Society, was 

 in all cases to be final. 



Failing to get redress, I placed the matter in the hands of a 

 solicitor, who took it into the County Court, where, as you will 

 see by the paper sent, a jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff. 

 You will not fail to notice one or two important points in this 

 case. One is, his Honour stated, that " if the birds were bom'i 

 fide Canaries, and not artificially coloured, the award of the 

 Judges must be final ; but if they were afterwards found to be 

 artificially coloured, it would be contrary to all precedent to 

 allow such birds to take the prizes." 



In conclusion, I may state that the tails of my birds were 

 found, on being wetted, to give oft a colouring matter ; this I 

 attributed to the fact that the floor of the house wherein my 

 birds are kept is always strewn with " crag," and that I never 

 think of washing my birds before sending them for show. — 

 Thomas Fenn, Ipswich. 



[The trial referred to was before Mr. Worlledge and a jury in 

 the County Court held at Lowestoft on the 29th of January, 

 and the facts being admitted, the sole question was. Were the 

 birds artificially coloured ? 



The following summing-up of the Judge shows the weak 

 points in the case : — 



His Honour, said if the Judges had awarded to plaintiff prizes 



amonnting to £6 lis. 6rf., plaintiff would be entitled to that sum in 

 the event of the jury finding n verdict for him. It was a grave charge 

 against the rlnintiff to say that he had obtained the prizes by frand, 

 for it was nothiiif; more nor less than that. He thonght the jury would 

 agree with him that there was no evidence from which they conld come 

 to the conclnsion that the birds were sent colonred from Ipswich. 

 Then, he must ask, what motive could any man have to colour those 

 birds while in their transit '.' Indeed, he conld not see what oppor- 

 tunity anybody could have had of doinn so. That being so, the facts 

 appeared to him to be — either the birds were sent coloured from 

 Ipswich, or they were exhibited in their natural condition. He could 

 not see that there was any third conclusion they could come to. There- 

 fore it was the more important that they should consider the case 

 carefully. With reference to the plaintiff, it was a very grave charge 

 to say that he sent the birds falsely coloured so as to get the prizes by 

 false pretences. They must also observe in favour of the plaintiff that 

 he has been in the employment of Messrs. Turner fifteen years, and 

 not ono single imputation was attempted to be thrown upon him. So 

 far as everjthing had gone in the Court, the plaintiff stood there as a 

 thoroughly respectable man. Nevertheless, they must take the evidence 

 into account. The fraud charged against plaintiff is that he coloured 

 the birds with some unknown substance. Very often when persons 

 are charged with poisoning, evidence is given that the person so charged 

 had had poisonous matter in his possession. The defendants had not 

 shown that plaintiff' ever had any colouring matter. The theory on 

 the part of the plaintiff is — and it deserves tlie attention of the jury- 

 that, for the first two years that lie kejit birds, he lost many of them. 

 He afterwards kept the bu-ds on crag, which is of a yellowish hue, and, 

 since then, he has scarcely lost any. That fact was confirmed by 

 Baker, who had said thithe saw the birds on the craK on the very 

 morning of the day that they were sent to Lowestoft, They must also 

 remember there was plaintiff's own oath that he never colonred his 

 birds with anything artificially, and that the stain which came off must 

 have been from the crag. Now, when a man of respectability swore 

 positively to a thinfj, they ought to Rive considerable weight to it, be- 

 cause the man would not only be guilty of a gross fraud, but he must 

 come into court to cover that fraud by committing gross perjury after- 

 wards. The jnry must believe, first, that plaintiff coloured i\iQ birds 

 fraudulently, and then that he afterwards committed the most wilful 

 perjury. That was a stigma they ought not to fix upon any man, except 

 upon very conclusive evidence, "What wag the evidence on the part of 

 the defendants '? Mr, Green, a competitor, made the protest against 

 the awards. It certainly had struck him (his Honour) to ask why had 

 not Mr. Green been called to teU them what it was that led him to 

 make the protest, and what led him to suppose that those birds were 

 colonred ? He should like to know why he was not produced, "When 

 I a charge of fraud was brought against a man he certainly thought that 

 the man who founds that charge ought to come forward. The fact of 

 Mr, Green enterinp; a protest was no proof that plaintiff had colonred 

 the birds, but the defendants acted upon it. The proper course would 

 have been to have had the crag-coloured and the saffron-coloured 

 handkerchiefs, with the colour got off the birds, side by side. The 

 defendants do now say that the colour was not that of craR which came 

 off the birds. Unless there was a coniT"'vison made at the time as to 

 the difference of shade, how can anyoni- Ire certain ? Then it was said 

 that was not all. There was a gentleman who bought a pair of birds 

 of the plaintiff, and those birds also betrayed colouring ; the colour 

 which he wiped off was a bright yellow. But here again they had no 

 comparison, which could have been made at the time. He (his 

 Honour) did not suppose that any of the gentlemen who had been 

 called to speak for the defendants were aware that the birds had been 

 kept upon crag, and they naturally jumited to the conclusion that the 

 birds were artificially coloured. Had they known it, they might have 

 qualified their opinion as to the kind of stains which were produced by 

 wiping the birds. The two gentlemen who awarded the prizes were 

 Messrs. Simmons and Clarke, Simmons had been called before them, 

 but why Mr, Clarke, of Ipswich, who was in court, had not been called 

 by either party he could not understand, but he must say that he 

 thonght it was not incumbent upon the plaintiff to call that man 

 (Clarke), Plaintiff stood upon the awards, and it was for the defen- 

 dants to displace them. So there were two material witnesses who, if 

 they had been called, might have thrown some light upon the matter. 

 He (the Judge) was exceedingly glad that a jury had to decide the 

 question. If they thought that plaintiff had been guilty of colouring 

 his birds, and sending them to the show coloured with the view of in- 

 creasing his chance of success, why then they would find a verdict for 

 defendants ; but if, on the other hand, they, as reasonable men, 

 believed that the plaintiff was not gnilty of frand, and they had any 

 donht that plaintiff stained the birds, he must tell them it was their 

 bounden duty to find a verdict for the [jlaintiff. 



The jury retired about ten minutes, when they gave a verdict for 

 plamtifffor £6 lis, 6(/, 



It is very evident that the jury did not believe the witnesses 

 who testified that the birds were coloured, and they were quite 

 justified in their disbelief, for, as the Judge observed, the 

 colouring was alleged to be by "some unknown substance." 

 Nothing could have been more easy than to show that it was 

 saffron or gamboge which was suggested — the very doubt was 

 I damnifying — but no one suggested even the desirability of 



