Iaiportaxce Of Good Judguxg. 163 



on it. But counsel for the plaintiff showed conclusively that by the "Railway and Canal Traffic 

 Act" (17 & 18 Vict, cap. 31) such liability continued to attach to the company, any disclaimer 

 notwithstanding,* unless by special contract signed by the sender they had been exempted. It 

 was also held that fancy value should fairly be taken into consideration, but not to an exorbitant 

 extent ; and in this particular case the sum was assessed at £^. Our own impression is that 

 for poultry damages might be recovered to the extent of about ;^5 each for valuable birds, but 

 not beyond ; and that in most cases, after the foregoing decision, no company would dispute such 

 a demand, though they might refuse one for a larger sum. 



That all prize money should be paid, and other outstanding liabilities of any show should 

 be settled promptly after closing, is so obvious as scarcely to need remark. Even the great 

 Birmingham show only requires a month for these purposes, and in most cases a fortnight should 

 be amply sufficient. Punctuality in this matter has a great influence on the confidence of exhibitors 

 for the next occasion. 



And now we come to consider Judging — that crucial proceeding at every show, upon which 

 so many anxieties and hopes depend. That good judging must be more than anything essential to 

 the healthy condition of the poultry fancy, is so self-evident as almost to be a truism. Almost 

 everything depends upon it, for let there once arise a well-founded conviction that judging is not 

 at least fair and impartial, and the whole system must rapidly come to an end. That it does not, 

 but that shows multiply in number and increase their entries on every hand, is conclusive proof 

 that, on the whole, the judges chiefly employed deserve the confidence reposed in them by 

 exhibitors. Mistakes cannot of course be always avoided, and we have ever found the most 

 honoured judges in England the most ready to acknowledge such if fairly and courteously pointed 

 out. Considering the hours of special study it sometimes requires for an amateur to decide which 

 is the best of even his own birds, which he has himself reared from the shell, it is simply impossible 

 that judges should in one day decide absolutely without error amongst such heavy classes as are 

 now frequently subjected to their awards. The "ordinary run" of birds are often now superior to 

 those which took prizes in the early days of the poultry fancy, and the difficulty of deciding 

 between them is proportionately increased. When, therefore, an outcry is raised for "correct 

 awards," if it is meant that every award is to be beyond challenge, the demand is simply impossible 

 of satisfaction : no system and no judges can ever satisfy it. What may be demanded are, the 

 strictest integrity, the highest ability, recognised principles of arbitration, and fair time to bring 

 these to bear ; and it is in relation to these that our few remarks will be directed. 



In regard to integrity, we have already remarked that the confidence which, as years pass on, 

 continues to be reposed in the most valued English judges, is a very simple proof of character 

 beyond corruption. We may add that we have taken the trouble to investigate personally some 

 half-dozen definite charges against judges of repute, and we not only found in every case that they 

 were utterly without foundation, but that in several cases the general conduct of the complainants 

 would not bear examination. We have seen scores of times beginners in the fancy, who happened 

 luckily to possess birds good enough, wrest the prizes of the year from all those veteran exhibitors 

 who have been supposed to " rig the market " with the judges so effectually. Should it ever be 



* The words ol the Act are, " Notwithstanding any notice, condition, or declaration made and given by such company contrary 

 thereto, or in anywise limiting such liability, every such notice, condition, or declaration being hereby declared mill and void ;"' 

 though special contracts, signed by the sender, are expressly admitted. 



In another case, decided in the Court of Common Pleas, in May, 1872, Mr. South recovered £20 from the Lancashire and 

 Yorkshire Railway Company, lor the death of five pigeons caused by delay on that Company's line. 



