624 THE 
GARDENERS 
CHRONICLE. 
{NOVEMBER 13, 1875. 
„Ву the Judge : Plaintiff's bill was not amongst those 
I had had no bill sent in 
By M т. Meadows White : 
Hood distinctly swore I owed 
гетен А Abou three weeks or ^. month after this time 
I received this long account from plaintiff. 
By the pu What I iore. was merely the gross 
amount 
By МЕ Meade ows White: I received no particulars, 
did not appear to be valuable, bec: hey were 
very poor condition—some dry stalks and -sha 
flowers. When my attention was first called to them I 
should e very so e given twenty-one 
pence for one, much less Z2r. I have had a great many 
ts sent i other people. "There was nothing 
on these ts to indicate that they came from Mr. 
w conti FTO n. , and w 
informed that he had left. I was he ression 
that he was servant, but he left without giving me 
any notice. ismi at was 
never called to any plant, either i in my greenhouse or in 
my ренда as having come from the plaintiff. I know 
that Hood exhibited ; the fi first year he exhibited was at 
Glasgow. Не said, “ Му things are packed up, 
і ; І take it for granted you 
—— ж This was in r I said “1 
on 
have a strong 
mitted you to exhibit once a year in Ireland 
So now, quite e would not have allow 
you to have exhibited out of Ireland." I do not know 
what things were ; I believed them to be fruit, not 
ers. no idea he was exhibiti ing anything Sei 
what he grew himself. I believed кык to be Сга 
him to exhibit 
name was upon the cups. 
told him M tale the rene into the grocer’s shop and 
them him. 5 
р 
уе а I have thought it 
dishonest to have bought things of a nn 
" d to have exhibite 
have competed with my 
gue че E so too. (The witness was 
not 
Mr. C m was next called, and in answer t 
Mr. Hawkins he said: I am agent for Mr. Leslie, and 
was agent for Colonel Charles Leslie during his Ше, 
bank post bill was obtain rough me, 
understood it was Mr. Williams’ account for 187 É I 
never heard of any other until this account was sent, in 
1875. 
mem y Mr. Kemp: I do not think I 
ved the же t bon the plaintiff. I think it was 
handed to my clerk. I did not show the receipt to Mr. 
Mit nd denti I cannot мыз. read it If I had 
read it no doubt I should have understood there was 
some more аид з the receipt being '*on account," 
wkins, in summing up the case to the jury on 
the defendant, — that the т... witness had 
pu 
m sys is a confi- 
dential servant and wants a cheque a bank post bill 
= r £73 for certain accounts, and that that clears all the 
up for the whole of the year i and that is 
is owing, you give him the bank post bill, a 
tell | what Ilike, but I like sweet-smelling things." 
(the learned Counsel) supposed that meant a little Helio. 
trope and Violets, a Moss Rose w in 
season, and a {A bj “I 
se,” pitas Mr. Hawkins, “ 
i I do not know. As Tam а Bencher of the 
io know, but 
red Ne Карай not cross-examine about 
to it, but, as my brother per-_ 
Wid Sita itive To De mace oF HEE 
. Hawkins: Not a er К Mr. Leslie did not conceal 
anything from the jury, and he said, if he had known it, 
he would not have а anything of the sort o be 
diae E If I w d my nei 
due beyond the bill; and on the who 
Counsel submitted that the plaintiff was not entitled to 
any further paymen 
Mr. Kemp then naibi on the ve case. Comm 
made as to the a e of Hood, but poen 
plain id not call са sed it would have been a 
mest foolish thing to 
whose character 
had pes 
most abominably treated by Hood, and that aj 
Hood very reason to complain, but he thought 
re 
ro 
limits, but whether or not Les 
that these goods had been supplied t 
Hood, ought to — returned them. He! thought am 
to keep them would remind the jury that they 
still remained in arc ossession. the case rest 
the question of implied authority, he а 
was no case upon which to address 
is friend tried to — til in ne minds dgio p^ 
defendant had a serious griev: nst Hood 
d beca that eei s (Ма ш: aei, 
ed them for their verdict. It was very easy 
ә say, Why did not the plaintiff do so and so? but 
usiness things are hastily read, ae en a man has 
изге эм Mac NADA. P g committed he puts an 
pursued different from that 
any suspicion. Why, 
i defendant did he not 
distinct state- 
in a и» 
€ 
* on account," showing to 
garden seemed to be 
things of that kind, thought 
one; but gentlemen do buy i e plants, or they 
would not be ош. These matters are often left to 
h 
n of skill: ana ability, In 
жаш. was left to Hood, it is sss the def 
A 
an 
so that, having had a supplied, he could easil 
sent the plants back or ara requested the plaintift to 
а bos are if, such an Pa mae pes being 
ms the plaintiff had decli 
to it ‘then the ya would have been a x more 
rati onal o ; but t if the de fendant, Mr, je, thinks 
йн, or with his — by him personally they 
5 gar 
were not ordered, but by ardener, Ishould have 
said, " for the matter to whi am going to са 
your attention, that he would have been liable. No 
doubt a gardener might acket of seeds, or 
45 worth of bedding plants, but whether he was to 
ay £25 is another matter ot think you ne 
If the matter stood there he would be liable 
and he would be liable, as quence, for the account 
f £119, which was for things ordered before the plain- 
tiff had any notice та а limitation on th 
gardener's part. authority to a person 
d is liable for that authority, диен it may be indis- 
eetly exercis f I said to my gardener, ‘‘ You may 
order can but only to the erm f about £100,” and 
n the next year he orders th in о the extent of £200, 
u ld say, ‘ know the 
supply you ” The plaintiff well knew, 
pretty good notice, of what the nature of the limitation 
what the gardener says: * І have not ап 
ratiy to rder in ch things as in my discretion I think 
right. iscretion is a limited one.” But for what I 
am going to call your attention to there would bea 
very good er to the action. I quite agree that it is 
too hard to call the plaintiff fraudulent, or say he is 
party to a fraud, for I heisa y to 
fraud at all. I y an interest i 
ter of making £20 
iness. Itis the e pleas 
usin he would zd Mee 
intimation that it was not by hi: 
had refused to supply them, the gardener 
why should the master bey for it? 
say, I did not like to сер niy customer. 
the loss уеге and do 
that when he got the notice of that account he — to 
have off return them. you should be 
opinion that. Mr. Leslie must have known ont these 
n ordered beyond the limitation which 
are some 
adversary is making a point, 
divert pe attention of the jury 
man, and friend 
ie 
В 
Bramwell in Summing up said 
action in which етан ee m 
s delivered to the defendant. 
are know 
am sure if : any one one had told me авон the valů 
believed it, but I do not 
peop = who know the value of 
of these 
accou 
laintiff sent in his bill and I 
ve seen the ts there, but whether they came irom 
the plaintiff, or how t came, I did not know in an 
way unti account was sent in that had 
beyond > m He inquired of Hood, and Hood 
assured him he had not ordered anything else." Т 
ty, therefere, in eine that, ж to var 
iven Leslie, 
said а г. Leslie need not have мы Mr. Wil- 
liams with. ni He had noticed that Mr. Williams 
supplied plants to the amount of 
that he — to have said to Mr. 
liable these . 
