236 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
The plant did not flower until January, 1900, and instead of being as 
described, it had a muddy yellow ground with brown spots—quite a differ- 
ent thing. Plaintiff then wrote to M. Linden, the manager or president of 
the defendant company, that the plant had been cared for and grown as 
well as possible for two years, and was now in flower, but to his regret and 
disgust it bore not the slightest resemblance to the engraving. He therefore 
asked that the plant should be fetched away and the money returned. On the 
8th M. Linden replied, expressing his regret that the plant was not flowering 
true ; which he could not understand, for he was sure that the true plant 
was sent two years ago. He also asked for a flower, and promised to settle 
the matter to plaintiff's entire satisfaction. Three flowers were accordingly 
sent on January roth, and the 16th M. Linden replied that the flowers were 
entirely different from those of the plant sent, which had flowered with 
them four years in succession quite true, and it was impossible that it could 
change into a form like the one sent. On the other hand he regretted that 
the accounts of Messrs. Lucien Linden & Co., who sold the plant, were 
closed and could not be re-opened. Plaintiff at once wrote expressing his 
astonishment at the new position taken up, and stating that the plant was 
still in the same pot in which it was sent, and was there for his inspection. 
On January 22nd M. Linden replied that he could not believe it to be the 
same plant which had flowered several times true, and he regretted that 
they could do nothing further in the matter. 
On January 24th, it was put into the hands of Mr. Rutherford’s 
solicitors, who wrote setting forth the facts, and demanding the return of the 
money paid for the plant, or further steps would be taken. No reply was 
received to that letter, but apparently they communicated with Mr. 
Schuster, their agent in England, who wrote to plaintiff's gardener to the 
effect that he did not think it was a matter that ought to occupy a lawyer, and 
that he should be pleased to call by appointment to talk over the matter. 
This letter was taken to plaintiffs solicitor, who thereupon wrote that his 
client did not want to see Mr. Schuster, and unless a cheque for £88, being 
principal and interest, was sent by return of post proceedings would be 
taken. There was some further correspondence, and on April 2nd M. 
Linden wrote declining all responsibility, on the ground that the plant 
claimed for could not be the one they sold. Then the case went on, and 
judgment was signed for default of appearance, and a warrant was issued 
to the sheriff to assess the damages for breach of warranty. 
An application was then made to set aside the judgment on the ground 
that they had a complet to the plaintiff's allegations, and denied all 
liability whatever, This necessitated a number of difficult inquiries, but on 
April 23rd defendants wrote proposing that the plant should be allowed to 
flower again and then be submitted to independent experts. Should it then 
