620 THE 
GARDENERS: ..€i4RONICLE. [NOVEMBER 13, 1875, 
HORTICULTURAL EXHIBITIONS, 1875. 
NOVEMBER. 
aati K egg coser Society of Ireland. Private Winter 
Exhibi Sec., A. Balfe, 28, Westland Row, Dublin, 
27. —Cheethan Hill Horticultural Society" s Annual Exhibition 
of Chrysanthemums, Miscellaneous Plants, and Fruit. 
к „нар manm | Society, South ^ E Meeting 
of Fruit, Floral, 
Gardeners Chromiele, |= 
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1875. 
APPOINTMENTS se THE ENSUING WEE 
Show at the Crystal n (four 
ur 
Sale oí Dutch Bulbs, at реек Room 
TUESDAY, Nov. 16 I x of as and Pigeons, at orci 
Monpay, Nov. NT 
Sale "д “Bulbs Bj Shrubs, and Greenhouse 
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 17 { Plants, at Stevens’ Rooms. 
THURSDAY, Nov. 18— Meeting of a Ese pea SM мы P.M 
erks Sitan at Readin 
SATURDAY, Nov. 20 { Sale of Dette Bulbs, Plants, E Trees, 
1 &c., at Stevens’ з? Rooms. 
"HE case of WILLIAMS V. LESLIE, the 
report of the first day's proceedings of 
which a in last week's issue, and the 
conclusion of which will be found at p. 623, 
is of so exceptional a character, and of pos: 
general interest to employers, gardeners 
nurserymen, as to warrant our сару diee 
ring to it here. 
From what transpired in evidence it would 
appear that Colonel CHARLES LESLIE was the 
owner of Leslie Castle, Ireland, and kept up a 
ardening establishment there until his 
death, in June, 1871. Atthat time, and for some 
time NOUS за had а gardener of the name 
of D, , after the death of Colonel 
LESLIE, co mined in the same са 
his 
brother, JOHN LESLIE. It Bie 
boss Bet. duis C sonon LESLIE'S ed mhe 
а £700 per at ome говне 
— small orders for ke had been 
n by Hoop, on behalf of his vig a to 
plaintiff and which were executed by him 
After the defendant, Mr. J. LESLIE, | сие into 
possession of the place Hoop continued as here- 
tofore, to give orders to plaintiff nues others for 
plants, shrubs, &c., but toa larger amount collec- 
tively, and for plants of much greater value indi- 
vidually. ere was an account of some £16 
odd paid by defendant to plaintiff in Jan., 1873, 
through his gardener Hoop. Mr. LESLIE, find- 
ing that over double the amount expended in his 
brother’s time was being spent, told Hoop that 
he would not permit this to go on, and that the 
expenditure must not exceed £600 per year. 
This, as a matter of course, was unknown: 
i :verth Hoop 
fine specimen stove and greenhouse plants, In 
May, 1874, an account of over £72 was paid by 
Hoop, leaving a still larger amount unsettled, 
atthe same time Hoop intimated to plaintiff 
by letter that he had exceeded his allowance 
for 1873, but would settle the itc when he 
could draw upon his next year's account, and 
still kept on ordering specimen plants until the 
amount reached £428. Shortly after this, but 
before he was aware of the extent to which his 
gardener had gone in purchasing from the 
plaintiff Mr. LESLIE discharged him, after 
which, as a matter of course, the accounts were 
sent in i 
without autor bu ke payer sted 
| ж = paid into court £328, being £100 
less .han the amount claimed, and to recover 
this the case was taken into court. 
We have thus brought the principal facts 
together ina way that our readers will be able 
to understand them. In the evidence adduced 
simple perusal to fully реси the case. 
The plea set up at the commencement by the 
learned Counsel for the gm nce, of the non- 
liability of defendant for the orders given by his 
gardener, was over-ruled by the judge, and was 
withdrawn. The fact of previous orders having 
been given by the gardener for defendant to 
plaintiff, executed by him and afterwards paid 
ке rendered the defendant liable for апу sub- 
sequent transactions. Defendant's Counsel also 
submitted that plaintiff could not claim on 
account of having supplied goods after learning 
from the gardener that he had purchased more 
than the sum he was allowed for the year would 
permit of, unless he, the plaintiff, had taken the 
trouble to learn more about the matter. 
The Counsel for plaintiff urged the strength 
of his case, in the fact that the defendant, after 
ware of his possession of the goods, 
retained them, instead of asking plaintiff to 
take them back. The Jud e saw the force of 
this, but, as a counterpoise, considered it equally 
incumbent on the plaintiff to have proposed to 
plaintiff from any disposition to act unjustly or 
wrongfully in the matter, nevertheless he con- 
sidered that in supplying goods to the gar- 
dener’s order, after he had had an intimation 
that the gardener, had for the year expended 
more than his allotted sum, he did so at his 
2 
wn peri 
After retiring for deliberation the jury gave 
a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount 
claimed, less 5 per cent., which, had the account 
been settled in the ordinary course, woul аре 
prs have been presented to the garaener 
though we are glad to find the plaintiff onda 
ing the equivocal practice of giving discount. 
Respec ting the views advanced as to a pro- 
ei 
knowledge as to the totally different nature of 
plants from ordinary merchandise, In the case 
of a bale of Manchester goods or a package of 
Sheffield cutlery a proceeding of this kind might 
hold good, for, if they had not been used and 
were carefully stored, even for the length of time 
same of these plants had been delivered, they 
ight have lost little in value. Not so with 
a full-grown specimen plants, which 
nothing less than skilful attention and great care 
for year s had brou TUM up to the size and 
estion. had evidently 
condition those 
| PR With UA = Tack of knowledge i in 
eir management, even for a very short time, 
would either destroy them outright, or lessen 
their value so as to make them of little worth—a 
condition, from what transpired at the trial, 
some of them had indeed ei reduced to. 
In ase there are two 
things that forcibly present КЕЗ the first 
of which is, the blind infatuation and culpable 
recklessness of the gardener after being warned 
by his employer that he would not allow such 
an expenditure, in continuing to pledge his 
employer's credit for so large an amount; next 
the unaccountable carelessness on the part of 
the employer, after having had occasion to 
reprimand his gardener for exceeding the 
amount he should have gone to in ing 
plants, and limiting him. for the future, i in not 
ascertaining tha! 
t his in 
to. Many gentlemen know little compara- 
tively about plants, but an who kn 
Fuchsias, Pelargoni шша Md 
such like ordinary things, and the finest 
specimens, such as those in question, some of 
which were individually as well known i ie 
connected with gardening as a caster 
or à Lowlander amongst habitués of idis Turf, 
plants were sold for more than their value ; but, 
in justice to the plaintiff, we can state our 
opinion with confidence—an opinion shared by 
many competent to judge—that such was not 
the case. 
To the credit of gardeners be it said, it is a 
although very frequently they take as much 
pride in the excellence of the things under their 
charge, and the general appearance of the 
places entrusted to them, as they could possibly 
case is one that may serve as a salutary w 
ing to all concerned, both V aiia Fab м. 
and nurserymen. 
Since the foregoing remarks were written we 
have seen that a new trial has been asked for 
on behalf of the defendant, so that the matter 
is likely dus excite even more attention thanit - 
has yet 
—— WE are informed that M. Е, пин well 
known as 4 landscape gardener in AG coun ell 
Co 
ü 1 
n the ntinent, and also e uL of the - 
ew Gran 
to the results of Яа journey with unusual interest, 
for it is rare to meet with a traveller so well qualified 
by previous Коне e of the existing state of horti- 
culture and of its requiremen M, ANDRE, We 
heartily wish him God-speed on his journey. 
Mr. DowNIE, of Edinburgh, has sent us a 
couple of PRIZE LEEKS from the Ашлы Leek Club | 
Show, which together weigh 3 lb. oz ТЫ 9 
rtion | 
II inches in ЗИ and 
6 inches in circumference, and the whole was solidas - 
an Onion. 
—— There аге indications ee themselves — 
to the observant horticultu that the RAKING 
AWAY OF iecit LEAVES Бад shrubberies during — 
e in some instances at least, having an in- 
jurious effect on the well-being of the plants. We 
have seen belts of shrubbery growing in the shallow | 
soils in gravel where there is a 1 
of natural drainage, that sufler severely in times — 
of drought, and when the drought is actually causing 
the d 
some of the shrubs. Especially is this 3 
true of lines of shrubbery skirting roadways, where 
there is a frequented public footway on the east, 
south, and west sides, and a fence dividing it from the 
would supply valuable assistance, but they are raked 
out for the sake of tidiness, and with them a 
amount of the ME inadequate soil, If the leaves 
ov be allowed to remain on the surface sometimes, 
а coating of good soil were spread on them, the 
be largely benefited теру, и and decay 
T ps would be materially arrested. A hen 
vigorous shrubbery is of the first importance in a 
ordered garden. 
—— The proper STORING or DAHLIA Roo 
a matter of much importance to cultivators at "ds 
season of the year. As a general rule the plants are 
allowed to remain out-of-doors, where they have 
, as long as possible, to mature ; 
as soo a frost sets in, and the liage becomes de- 
stroyed, the roots are up. Some growers prefer 
tol from the soil before the fr ured 
them, are in a healthy state, and free 
decay in the lower part of It is well to lift 
to allow the roots to remain in іп the ground for a time; ~ 
ма beyond the of the da: should 
not evening of nor 
roots be washed, but lifted with the the вой adhering 
