THE ORCHID REVIEW. 239 
man who packed the Orchid under his direction was not present in Court. 
Mr. Henry Schuster said he was formerly a traveller in the employ of the 
defendants, and was acquainted with the history of this Rambouillet Orchid, 
It was purchased in France, and was kept for some time before being 
divided. The choice varieties were kept in a special compartment of the 
house, and numbered about 60 or 70. One or two pieces of this particular 
variety were sold, but he was not sure if there was any of the stock left. 
The value would depend partly upon the number of plants there were. He 
should think a plant of the Rambouillet wouid be fully paid for by £8o. 
Many superior varieties had since turned up, and he doubted if he could sell 
a plant for £80 now, even in flower. It was Mr. Haumont’s duty to see 
the plants properly packed. He would be pleased to sell Mr. Cowan half a 
dozen plants at £150 each if he had them. 
Mr. William Handel Cannon, said that he was solicitor for the defend- 
ants, and had had many years experience as an Orchid grower. He had 
4,000 or 5,000 plants and 2,000 or 3,000 seedlings. Personally he could see 
nothing in this Orchid to give £80 for. He would not give £50 for it. He 
was only speaking as an Orchid grower. 
Mr. Glasgow said that concluded his case. He submitted that defend- 
ants had taken as much care as the plaintiff that there should be no mistake, 
and the burden of proof lay with the latter. With regard to the question 
of liability he submitted that he was not liable at all. We can do no more 
than we have done. On the evidence his friend had given it 
would be very difficult for plaintiff to establish his case, especially 
when you recollect that seventy of his constituents have come over to view 
his Orchids, attended only by the gardener. If this Orchid is not blooming 
or going to bloom in plaintiff's house, it may bloom in the house of one of 
his constituents or in that of some other gentleman. Gardeners of other 
gentlemen might come too, and they sometimes exchange flowers quite 
honestly, but some might come along and desire to take an Orchid of that 
kind. All these possibilities had to be taken into consideration before the 
plaintiff could make out his case. 
Mr. Horridge submitted that he had proved conclusively that this 
particular variety had not been sent. If its value was sufficient to make 
defendants recollect the plant, how much more would it make plaintiff's 
gardener, who was present when Mr. Schuster sold it, and who knew 
its value, watch it carefully and recollect all about it! It was bought 
in November, 1897, and no such flower as was sold has appeared 
in our Orchid house, which I submit is conclusive evidence that the 
thing we bought never came. It is not suggested that any plant has 
ever been missed from the house; the books contain a full description 
of these Orchids, and therefore the only suggestion would be that 
