162 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [JUNE, 1906. 
houses, as they had in those of the defendants, while they did not say 
that they doubted the identity of the plants with those supplied by them. 
On April 21st the defendants proposed, by way of amicable compromise, 
to take back the plants and replace them by other plants of fine varieties 
in flower, to be chosen by the plaintiff, and to be of the same value as those 
originally purchased, the plants to be priced according to the average 
market rates in England for such varieties. 
This proposal constitutes an implicit acknowledgment by the defendants 
of the identity of the plants with those supplied by them, for it is certain 
that the defendants would not have offered to take back worthless plants 
which they had not supplied and to furnish in their place other plants to 
the same value as those originally sent. 
On April 25th, having received from the plaintiff two flowers, produced 
by the plants called ‘‘Calos”’ and ‘‘ Funambulum,” the defendants stated 
that the differences in the shape, colour, and spots were due to the culture , 
to which they had been subjected with Mr. Leemann, while still saying 
that they wished to settle the matter in an amicable manner. 
Lastly, on May roth, they again asked the plaintiff how it was that the 
plants sold to him were now no longer true, but they did not expressly 
refuse to admit the identity of the plants with those originally suppiied, and 
it was only after the commencement of the action that they did so refuse. 
The experts who were interrogated upon the various technical points 
were M. Jules Hye, of Ghent, M. De Biévre, gardener to the King of the 
Belgians, and M. Stepman, nurseryman, Molenbeck-St.-Jean. 
The first witness of the direct hearing, the plaintiff's head gardener, 
stated that the plants which had produced the flowers sent by the plaintiff 
to the defendants were certainly those supplied by the latter. He declared 
that he would be perfectly able to identify the plants, even if their labels 
were removed, and they were mixed with others. He also stated that Mr. 
Thompson had shown him recently a plant of Odontoglossum crispum 
called ‘“‘ Calos,” which he had had a long time. 
The second witness declared that it was impossible that the plants in 
question should not be the same, owing to the scrupulous attention which 
was given to them, with regard to their entry in a register, ticketing, and 
numbering. No mistake was possible, as all plants were dealt with on 
arrival. He also stated that he had seen the plant of Odontoglossum 
crispum Calos in Mr. Thompson’s collection, and that it was he himself who 
first apprised the plaintiff of the existence of a ‘‘ Calos”’ in Mr- Thompson’s 
collection. 
The fourth witness, on the contrary, affirmed that both Mr. Thompson 
and his gardener had told him that the plant of Odontoglossum crispum 
Calos, which had been sold to the former by M. Linden, was dead. 
