THE ORCHID REVIEW. 235 
LAW NOTES. 
RUTHERFORD y. L’HoRTICOLE COLONIALE. 
An important case was heard in the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench 
Division, on July 2nd and 3rd last, before Mr. Justice Bruce. It was an 
action brought by J. Rutherford, Esq., M.P., Beardwood, Blackburn, 
against the society L’Horticole Coloniale, Brussels, for breach of warranty 
on the sale of an Orchid, and the following report has been taken from a 
transcript of the original shorthand notes of Messrs. Snell & Son, which 
Mr. Horridge, K.c., and Mr. Randolph appeared for the plaintiff; 
and Mr. Glasgow for the defendants. : Le 
Mr. Horridge, in opening the case for the plaintiff, stated that at an 
earlier trial judgment was permitted to go by default, but that subsequently 
the defendants swore an affidavit that they were not the company that sold 
the Orchid, and got leave to set aside the judgment. But he would read a 
letter from the defendants’ solicitors in which they no longer contested the 
point that they are the same body who sold the Orchid, although they have 
now changed their name. A number of defences had been raised, but the 
defence now was that they did not warrant the Orchid, if they sold it, and, 
secondly, if they did warrant it, there is no breach of warranty. 
Mr. Glasgow: The issue in the case is this, that we admit the warranty. 
but that we say there has been some mistake, and that this is not the same 
Orchid. 
Mr. Horridge stated that on 16th November, 1897, a gentleman named 
Schuster came to the house of Mr. Rutherford, at Blackburn, and produced 
a diagram of an Orchid called “ Odontoglossum crispum var. Triomphe de 
Rambouillet,” and that Mr. Rutherford purchased a plant, together with 
some others, for an aggregate sum of £400, of which £80 was paid for the 
Rambouillet. The diagram was produced to us, and the warranty was that 
the Orchid would flower, when it flowered, and if it flowered, according 
to that diagram. Two other Orchids mentioned on the same invoice were 
wrong. One described as Imperator was wrongly described, and the 
defendants took it back aud refunded the money paid for it. The other 
described as Archipel was also wrongly described, but was of equal value 
and was therefore kept. Mr. Schuster said that they would send a written 
warranty, and a clause in the next document of 27th November, 1897, 
stated, “‘ Every plant is guaranteed true to description. At thesame time 
we are always ready to amend or take back any plant that may not turn to 
your entire satisfaction ’—this is the warranty. The diagram was handed 
to his Lordship for inspection, the plaintiff's Counsel pointing out that the 
flower had a pinkish ground with darker red spots, and a pure white lip. 
