676 Kidd V, Royal Agricultural Society of England. 
to show you how it was done. It would be a possible thing tha 
the screenings intended for the " Ordinary" might by some acci 
dent get into this " Genuine," and if they had that would accoun 
for the thing looking much more dirty than it was before — bu 
there is no evidence— none of the people who are called fron 
Mr. Kidd's admit that such a thing could happen. Mr. Fiel( 
could not possibly be expected to be prepared to follow every 
thing of that sort up ; he could not suggest any way that it coulc 
happen. But doubtless, if a quantity of these screenings had go 
into this particular lot, it would account very much for its bein| 
very dirty and for a great deal, though I do not see how it wouh 
account for some things that are stated. That will be one of th( 
questions for you to try — if supposing it is not proved — supposing 
the Defendants, the Agricultural Society, have unwarily sai( 
of this cake, "this cake was made of very dirty linseed " whei 
in fact it was made from good, and having said it contained tlu 
sweepings of warehouses, when in point of fact there were none 
but it turned out that the cake was of that bad kind of manu 
facture that has been described that it was made for the purpos( 
of delusion and not made an honest thing, and that they so made 
it, knowing that people would buy it as if it was linseed — I sa\ 
it certainly seems to me that would not be a trade to be encou 
raged ; and that in considering the damages, if you take that view 
you would probably say if the Royal Agricultural Society havi 
mistaken and said untruly this is made of dirty linseed, when ir 
fact, if they had known all, they would have said, this is passec; 
off as linseed and it contains 50 per cent, of other materials — il 
you take that view of it, it should affect the damages and cut 
them down very much indeed. That is a question entirely foi 
you. It is in that way that I think it bears upon the damages. 
The other question to which I wish to direct your attention is 
whether or not you think it is imputed to the Plaintiff that his 
cake actually poisoned the cattle from deleterious matters that were 
in it. If you think that is proved, then the damages would also be 
influenced by this. Still there v/ould be damages — a verdict for the 
Plaintiffs upon both points ; but if your view of the matter is that 
the Defendants have substantially proved from the Vhole resuU 
that the cattle did become ill because of some deleterious ingre- 
dient in the cake that was supplied, then there would be a verdict 
for the Defendant upon that ; and if you think that you arc 
satisfied on the evidence which the Defendant has given before 
you, consisting of people who looked at it and who tell you that 
they did see in it these quantities of things that they have 
mentioned although I think contained in very small portions, 
of cotton-husks, barley, seeds, and oats, and one thing and 
another — if you are satisfied from that that it is substantially 
