5 82 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. [February r, 1890. 
ACTION ABOUT TEA PLANTS. 
In the District Court of Kandy. — No. 2,640. 
Neil M. Adam of Pendleton EBtate, Wattegama, 
plaintiff, v. R. S. Pieris, Broomhill, Kollupitiya, Co- 
lombo, defendant, 
Thia was a claim of recovery of R600, value of 
200,000 tea plants, of which defendant took delivery 
of 150,000 and refused to take the balance. De- 
fendant resisted the claim on the ground that the 
plants supplied were poor and unheaalthy plants 
about two years old, unfit for planting and of in- 
ferior jat, that the defendant required the plants 
for planting on a large extent of land which he 
had just opened out, and that by reason of the 
plaintiff's breach of agreement the defendant lost 
a season for planting whereby he bad sustained 
g reat loss and damage, to wit damage -to the ex- 
tent of R3.750. 
At the trial, Mr. Beven appeared for the plaintiff 
and Mr. Sproule for the defendant. Mr. Adam, 
Mr. W. S. Marshall and Mr. Claud Hewat of Kana- 
pediwalte, Gampola, were called in behalf of the 
plaintiff. The defendant, G. D. Jamieson of Maria- 
watte, Gampola, P. D. Almeda of Morali Oya estate, 
and Juan Fonseka of Moragala estate, Kurunegala 
were examined for the defence. Today (February 
3rd) Mr. Lawrie gave the following 
Judgment : — 
The plaintiff advertized in the local papers that he 
had for sale " Strong, healthy tea plants at R6 per 1,000 
divered at Oampola." 
On the 30th April, the defendant wrote to the 
plaintiff : — " If you could let me have, say 100,000 tea 
plants, that you are advertizing at R6 per 1,000, I 
shall take on trial, and should the jat give me satisfac- 
tion, I shall be in a position to book your seed from 
next year as I require. I think you give delivery at 
from Gampola. Please state the age of the plants, 
kindly let me have a reply by return of post, as I am 
(sic) some tea plants Kelvin jat." 
The plaintiff replied on 2nd May : — " I should like 
very much to do business with you and for that pur- 
pose I am quite willing to make considerable conces- 
sions, but I do not see how I can sell the plants I am 
advertizing for less than R4 per 1,000, deliverable at 
Gamp da. The nursery I am advertizing is raised from 
Riverside seed, a jat highly recommended some time 
ago by the Tea Visiting Agent of the C- C. L. The 
nursery was planted by the late superintendent, and 
I purchased it from him when he was leaving 
for another estate towards the end of last year. My 
estimate of the good plants in the nursery is 204,000 
but say 200,000, and I will sell you the whole for 
R700 if you will take them as they stand, or give 
you 100,000 delivered at Gampola at R4 per 1000. 
* # # The nursery plants are about 18 months old 
and are strong healthy plants. Most of them were 
stumped to one foot high after I purchased the 
nursery." 
The defendant replied on 4th May :— " T hall glad- 
ly P a y y° u R6uu for 200,000 tea plants, though I 
do not require so many I shall take them at the 
above price. * * * I like stumps as they have to 
go a long way to the Keiani Valley, as delicate plants 
could not stand carriage. As soon as rain commences 
I shall send orders, or you will hear from my superin- 
tendent. You will have to send the plants to 
Ambepussa. I shall, of course, pay rail fare. I 
can get plants R4 from the Valley, but the plants 
are too small for June planting, so would require 
shading." 
The plaintiff replied on 7th : — " Many thanks for yours 
of the 4th instaut containing offer of R600 for the 
200,000 tea plants delivered at Gampola. * * * I 
accept the Offer and shall be obliged if you will give 
me timely notice when you require the plants, as I 
may need to send special coolies to the nursery to 
lift and carry the plants to Gampola. If I am not 
mistaken, tbo railway people insist on pre-payment 
of freight on plants. If so perhaps it would be cou- 
venientfor you to send me a small cheque to cover 
probable cost of transport by rail." 
The plaintiff sent off 150,000 plants in four dif- 
ferent lots between the 12th and 22nd May. In his 
evidence at the trial he said of these : — "These were 
healthy plants, good healthy plants, about 18 months 
old, Riverside jat; the trees had all been stumped, all 
those above a foot high, quite fit to he planted, not 
a bit too old." 
Mr. Claud Hewat said of the plants in the Dursery : 
The plants were healthy and strong in May last. 
They were fit to be transplanted." 
Mr. Marshall says he saw the plants in April when 
they were good and healthy in the nursery, in very 
fair order. 
These 15,000 plants were received in Keiani Valley 
by Juan Fonseka, the defendant's superintendent. He 
says of them : — " They were not good plants, sickly, very 
old, iat bad, over two years old, the roots were very 
old, and the stumps thin, very bad plants." He put 
only a few in the ground to show the defendant. He 
did not thiuk it right or worth while to plant the rest. 
PoDseka wrote his master, the defendant, who on 
25th May wrote to the plantiff : — "My superintendent 
has written to me to say that the tea plants are above 
two years old and are unfit for planting and that the 
jat iB very inferior. If this be the case I am not at 
all prepared to take the plants as I never plant bad 
jat on my estates. Kindly give me some good jat and 
charge a little more if you like, and for the balance 
of money I shall take seed. If you can make thi6 
arrangement, I shall feel very much obliged." 
Mr. Adam replied, but the letter has not been put 
in evidence. 
On 29th May, Mr. Almeida went to Riverside estate 
in Nawalapitiya to inspect and report on the plants. 
He says: — "I examined the plants, they were very old, 
sickly and bad plants, not fit for planting. They were 
over three years old. I would not plant such plants 
in any land of mine;" and in cross-examination he 
added : " The jat was bad particularly, the plants too 
old and the roots were like yams." 
On the 10th June, the defendant wrote to plain- 
tiff : " I regret I cannot take your tea plants as they 
are not healthy good plants as you mentioned in 
your letters of the 2nd and 28th instant." 
The plantiff replied on 15th June: The plants 
in the nursery are, in every respect, the good strong 
healthy plants of Riverside jat they were described 
as being. The description was plain and distinctive, 
and you should have satisfied yourself as to their 
fitness for planting in your estate, in the Keiani 
Valley or elsewhere, before making the purchase. 
Now that purchase has been made and a portion deli- 
vered, I positive y decline to allow you to draw back. 
It would be neither reasonable nor businesslike. 
The remainder in the nursery awaits your orders 
for delivery." 
On the 18th June, the defenpant wrote that he would 
himself go and see the nursery, and, on 20th June, 
the plaintiff wrote telling him how the nursery would 
be most easily reached. It seems that the defendant 
did not then go, but, in September, he asked Mr. 
Jamieson of Mariawatte estate to inspect the plants 
in the nursery. Mr. Jamieson's report was : — " The 
plants in the nursery have evidently been topped a 
long time ago and seem to me about three years old. 
The roots of the plants are very long and large and are 
past the stage when planting could be done with safety. 
The plants themselves are stunted and hide-bound, not 
in a healthy condition, and great numbers of them 
are in blossom. It would be difficult to lift them out 
of the nursery, except at great expense, and they 
would require enormous holes to plant them in, such 
as no one would contemplate making in opening an 
estate. The age of the plants and their stunted ap- 
pearance and the size of the roots make them unfit 
for planting in any clearing. * * The jat is very poor, 
and no one, in his senses, would think of putting plants 
of such a class in a tea clearing. Looking at them 
in every way, I consider the plants in the nursery 
quite unfit for use in a clearing, and would condemn 
the nursery as quite worthless." 
Mr. Jamieson's evidence at the trial was even more 
distinct. 
