240 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
some gentleman came with that pot and those six or seven bulbs 
in his pocket, and took one plant away, and put that plant in place 
of it. I submit that these facts are conclusive, and that the damages 
claimed represent a reasonable figure. 
Mr. Justice Bruce, in giving judgment, said that it was an action to 
recover damages for breach of warranty, the plaintiff alleging that the plant 
was not true to description, but an altogether inferior variety. The questior 
turned on the identity of the plant—whether the plant produced in court 
was the one delivered by the defendants to the plaintiff, and he thought 
that the evidence given by the plaintiff was sufficient to establish his case, if 
not displaced by the other evidence. He then reviewed the evidence on 
both sides, and pointed out that if the plant sent off had four bulbs and a 
growth it was not the same plant which arrived with six bulbs. On its 
arrival it was carefully labelled, registered, the number of bulbs given, 
and the plant had never been removed from the pot of Belgian make in 
which it arrived. It was carefully watched, and did not flower until 
January, 1900, when beyond all doubt the blossom was not true, and did 
not answer the warranty. Plaintiff gave complete evidence as _ to 
details, and if that evidence is true, undoubtedly he has proved his 
case. Defendants appear to keep no register, and the evidence 
on their part depends almcst entirely upon the evidence of Mr. 
Haumont, whose attention was not called to the matter until a 
long time afterwards, and he may well be mistaken. It seemed to 
him that he ought to find for the plaintiff on that part of the case, that the 
plant produced in court was the one sent as the Triomphe de Rambouillet, 
and as it is admitted that it does not answer the description, the warranty 
has not been complied with. 
There remained the question of damages. A considerable body of evi- 
dence has been produced on plaintiff's behalf to show that this plant, if it 
had answered the description, would have been worth £150. On the 
other hand, Mr. Schuster, for the defendants, says the value would not be 
more than £80. That was a great conflict of testimony and he must deal 
with it in the best way he could. He was inclined to assess the value of 
that Orchid at £120. He thought there was no doubt at all about the 
Principle on which the damages should be assessed in a case of this kind of 
breach of warranty. It was the difference between the article as it is and 
the value as it would have been if it had answered the description. In his 
opinion, if it had answered the description, it would have been worth £120. Its 
present value he understood not to be more than £5 or £6, and taking the 
highest sum, 6, that left the amount of £114, at which sum he asse: 
the damages. There will be judgment for the plaintiff for £114. 
Mr. Horridge: And the costs, my Lerd? His Lordship: And the costs. 
