THE ORCHID REVIEW. 51 
an Orchid grower, and he bought this piece for the sum of twenty 
guineas. Having purchased it, he took it away in order to cultivate it. 
After two years’ careful tending the plant flowered, but, unfortunately, 
instead of giving forth the coveted white bloom, it yielded instead a 
common purple flower, worth about 7s. 6d. Mr. Ashworth’s hopes, of 
course, were dashed to the ground. He, therefore, brought an action 
for breach of warranty. At the trial defendant called no witnesses, and 
all the evidence called for the plaintiff was that, had the warranty been 
true, this plant had a value which exceeded £50. Ultimately the learned 
County Court Judge gave judgment for the defendant, who had paid 
into Court the sum of twenty guineas, which, he said, was all the plaintiff 
was entitled to. Defendant did not deny the warranty, and it was now 
submitted that the plaintiff, on the finding of the Judge in the Court 
below, was entitled to a verdict of £50, because the least in the action 
for breach of warranty the plaintiff was entitled to was the difference 
between the value which was given him and the value the plant would 
have had had it flowered white according to the warranty. 
Mr. Montagu Lush, for the respondent, submitted to the contrary, 
and that the appellant paid the market price for the piece at the sale. 
[r. Justice Day, in giving judgment, thought the County Court 
Judge had erred on a matter of law, although he very much agreed 
with one portion of his judgment, which was that had this bulb turned 
out a white “Cattleya Aclandie” it might have been worth any sum. 
But he (Mr. Justice Day) was not in a position to say what such a 
flower would be worth if it existed. It never had any existence, as a 
matter of fact, and as far as one could tell it might never be grown, 
The County Court Judge, therefore, was also unable to ascertain its 
value. It was simply a speculation. However, the appellant was entitled 
to what he paid for it, with interest on his money, and some compensation 
for what costs had been incurred in the tending for two years. The 
Judge below had assessed the damages on a wrong principle, and the 
case must go back for the damages to be assessed rightly. 
Mr. Justice Lawrance said that personally he should have preferred 
dealing with this matter here at once, but he could not say that he 
disagreed as to its going back to the learned County Court Judge. He 
thought the latter had gone wrong, and speaking for himself he thought 
the true measure of damages in this case was not that which was 
contended for by Mr. Lush, namely, the difference between the market 
price and what the thing would sell for. There was a long current of 
authorities which showed that the rule which has always been acted 
upon was this—namely, the difference between the value of a thing, with 
a defect, which is warranted, and without a defect—that is to say what 
