THE ORCHID REVIEW. 79 
that, because that was the limit of his jurisdiction. Now if the case had 
stopped there it seemed to him self-evident that the learned Judge ought to 
have entered upon that finding which he did come to, namely, that at the 
time of sale it was worth more than £50, judgment for the plaintiff for that 
amount. But the learned Judge went on, and here he thought he misdirected 
himself—‘ But that until it showed its real nature there was no probability 
that an Orchid grower would give more than 20 guineas for it.” But what 
was the warranty? The warranty was, in his judgment, that when that 
Orchid bloomed, it should have a white blossom and not a purple one, 
Very well, what were the damages? It was a mistake to say that what he 
gave for this plant unbloomed two years before was any criterion of the 
direct loss which the plaintiff had snstained by reason of the breach of 
the warranty given, which was that when it did bloom it should bloom 
white and not purple. For these reasons he thought judgment ought to be 
entered for the plaintiff for £50, and that this Appeal must be dismissed. 
Lord Justice Chitty was of the same opinion. It was admitted that 
there was a warranty, and so soon as it was ascertained what the warranty 
was, all difficulty in the case vanished. Now, in his opinion, the warranty 
was that this was the only known plant, and that if the flower once came 
forth from these bulbs, or the leaves, it would be white. Now, at the end of 
two years, the plaintiff had ascertained that in the course of nature the 
plant produced a purple and not a white flower. This was a warranty in 
regard to a future event, and it seemed to him to be an error to try and 
apply the principle which is the one applicable in ordinary cases, of a sale 
on the market. This being a special warranty, he thought, the plaintiff 
had shown a special damage, that instead of getting that which he con- 
tracted for on the warranty, he had got an inferior article. 
When the evidence was properly examined for the purposes of the 
question of law, it was shown that the witnesses called, of whom there were 
many, did not bid in opposition to the plaintiff, and the reason why they did 
not bid was explained by them—that they had no faith in the warranty, 
they had an opinion about it, and that though Mr. Wells, the defendant, 
considered this unknown thing a_ white Cattleya, it would never 
prove to be such. The plaintiff, on the other hand, relied, as he was 
entitled to do, upon the warranty. He thought that the finding of 
the County Court Judge practically disposed of the question, but he 
agreed that there was some difficulty caused by the words which 
followed. “But until it showed its real nature there was no_ proba- 
bility that an Orchid grower would give more than 20 guineas for it.” 
He thought that was a rider added to that which he had already found, and 
that he was there pointing to the fact that no more than 20 guineas was 
obtained at that particular auction. He thought it would be right, in 
