THE ORCHID REVIEW. 



205 



question could have been mixed. He would not say that this variety had, 

 as a rule, highly spotted leaves. 



Mr. John Cowan, managing director of Messrs. John Cowan & Co., 

 Gateacre, said he had had about 25 years experience of Orchid growing. He 

 knew the variety in question very well, and, in his opinion, it was absolutely 

 impossible to distinguish it by the leaves before it flowered. There was 

 nothing extraordinary about a plant in the condition described developing a 

 new break and flowering in November. 



Mr. H. J. Chapman said the two divided plants were brought to him by 

 Mr. I' Anson, and they were clearly not the Harefield Hall variety. There 

 was no very obvious difference between the foliage of that and an ordinary 

 insigne. He found spots on the foliage of common insignes and of good 

 ones too. It was a matter of cultivation, and he did not think that as a 

 rule varieties with well spotted flowers had also well-developed spots on the: 

 leaves. 



Mr. Henry Cook said he was gardener to the Rev. F. Paynter, of Stoke 

 Hill, Guildford, who was a considerable Orchid fancier. Mr. Paynter had 

 purchased a plant from Mr. Keeling in January, 1899, as Harefield Hall 

 variety, which was afterwards split with a view of selling one at the sale of 

 duplicates held in April, 1900. It was advertised in Messrs. Protheroe and 

 Morris' Catalogue, and two gentlemen came down to see it, one of whom 

 pronounced it not to be an insigne at all, but a villosum seedling. Both 

 plants were subsequently returned to Mr. Keeling. 



Mr. Holman Gregory, in opening the case for the Defendant, said there 

 was no suggestion made by Mr. Appleton that the plaintiffs had acted 

 fraudulently or improperly. What he said was this. I had a plant of 

 Harefield Hall variety in my house, you came down and saw it, and 

 purchased it. I sent that plant to you, but what you sent back in 

 November was not the variety I sent you, and a mistake had been made by 

 the gardener or somebody. Defendant bought the plant from Mr. Keeling, 

 who himself bought it from a Mr. Young, of St. Albans, in September, 1899, 

 in bud. In November it flowered correctly, and in December he divided it 

 into four parts. Two of those parts were purchased by Mr. Appleton. One 

 was a strong shoot which should have flowered in the ordinary course of 

 events in the autumn of 1900, though as a matter of fact it did not flower till 

 a year later. The other part was the old flowering shoot, which developed a 

 break in the following June. It was this break that was solJ to Mr. Low, 

 and expert witnesses would tell the Jury that in the usual course of events 

 it could not possibly flower until November, 1902. After hearing the 

 evidence he should ask the Jury to say that the plants which Mr. Low sent 

 back could not have been produced from the one sold to him, and that in 

 some way a mistake had been made. 



