THE ORCHID REVIEW. 77 
ORCHIDS IN THE LAW COURTS. 
ASHWORTH v. WELLS. 
In the Court of Appeal on Monday, r4th February, before Lord 
Justices A. L. Smith, Chitty and Collins, the case of Ashworth v. Wells 
again came on for hearing. It was an appeal against the decision of 
Justices Day and Lawrence, as reported on page 50 of our last iss 1e. 
Mr. Russell, 0.C., and Mr. Tipping, instructed by Mr. G. Shorland 
Ball, were for the plaintiff, and Mr. Lush, instructed by Messrs. Grundy, 
Kershaw and Co., for the defendant. 
Lord Justice A. L. Smith was of opinion that in this case judgment 
should be entered for the plaintiff for £50, and gave his reasons as follows : 
There was a sale of Orchids in June, 1895, and it was admitted that the* 
defendant gave a warranty with regard to a certain Orchid which was 
called “Cattleya Aclandiz alba, seven bulbs, three leaves-—only known 
plant.” It was conceded that a purple Orchid of this class was common, 
but that a white one was not only extremely rare, but was unknown. Mr. 
Wells gave a warranty that this was a white Orchid of that class, and that 
point was conceded. The plaintiff, who was a large Orchid grower, 
attended the sale, with others, and on the faith of that warranty he bought 
the Orchid in question, and gave 20 guineas for it. It had been proved - 
that if the plant had been a purple instead of a white Orchid of its class it 
would have been worth 7s. 6d. Now the first question arising was what 
was the nature of the warranty which was given in that catalogue. It was 
conceded by the defendant that the plant was warranted, and the question 
was, what was warranted? In his opinion the true meaning of that clause 
in the catalogue relating to this plant was this: that it was a warranty by 
Mr. Wells that when it flowered it should flower white. There was no 
warranty that it should flower, or that it should live, but that when it 
flowered it should flower white. That being, in his judgment, the warranty 
which was given, what happened was this: Mr. Ashworth bought the 
plant, and gave 20 guineas for it ; he had to wait for what he would call the 
natural course of events, namely, for this Orchid to flower. It was not 
suggested by the evidence at the trial that anything out of the natural 
course of events would cause it to do otherwise than to flower, and in two 
years it did flower, and then it was found not according to warranty, but 
had a purple instead of a white flower. Complaint was thereupon made. 
An action was brought in the County Court, where the limit was £50. The 
defendant paid in the 20 guineas which the plaintiff paid for the plant, he 
paid in some small sum besides—he thought a couple of guineas—and he 
paid also the costs of the plaintiff, and he believed Mr. Russell said also the 
hearing fee—at any rate he paid some small costs in—but the substantial 
