April i, 1889.] 
THE. TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
665 
witness brought to him samples of their tea. He ex- 
amined the samples carefully twice- He saw samples 
both in September and in January. — What was the con- 
dition of parcel A ? It was gone off or going off. — In 
your judgment was there auy defect in that tea caused 
either by fumes of wines or spirits or by heat ? Cer- 
tainly not. — Do you agree with the last witness as to 
the cause ? Yes, I do. — Does the tea arriving in Eng- 
land first sell better or worse than later shipments ?• 
Generally better, if sold at once. 
His Lobdship : What is the usual time for first ar- 
rivals V Witness: Quite the end of June or the be- 
ginuiugof July. The 25th of June was very early, and 
shipments are seldom received before that time. — If a 
first shipment sells at once, how much more will it fetch 
than shipments a week later ? Probably Id a lb., be- 
cause there is DOthing like it on the market. — Between 
June 25th and August 22nd how much did the market 
fall for tea of this description H I should say 2d or 
more. — I observe from the catalogue that this tea was 
put up " brokers marks final," what does that mean? 
It means that the seller does not guarantee the marks 
placed on the tea by the broker, and the purchaser buys 
the tea with that notice. — Does " brokers marks linal" 
in the catalogue diminish the price ? Of course ; it 
throws a doubt upon the quality. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Finlai : I think you have 
some interest in these warehouses, Mr. Thompson ? 
None whatever, Mr. Finlay. — Have you had anything 
to do with the correspondence about this tea ? No. — - 
With regard to selling " by brokers marks final,'' does 
that influence the sale ? 
His Lordship : Of course it does. It is like selling 
a broker a horse with all faults. I daresay you have 
done that, Mr. Fiulay. (Laughter.) 
Mr. Finlay . I cannot say that I have. Your lord- 
ship has been more fortunate in that respect than my- 
self. (Laughter.) 
His Lordship (to witness :) You heard what was 
said by the last witness as to the conditiou of the tea. 
Did he tell us great stories ? Certainly not, my lord. 
Mr. Keid said it would save time if Mr. Finlay would 
take it from him that Mr. Buck and Mr. Grant Scott 
agreed with the evidence given by Mr. Thompson. 
Mr. Okaven, examined by Mr. Reid, said that for 
twelve consecutive seasons he had been a buyer of tea 
at Hankow, where this identical tea was bought. — 
What do you say in reference to the teas of season 
1888 ? It was the worst season out of the twelve that 
I have been in China as regards weather — Would the 
effect of the bad weather be to make the tea go off ? 
The effect of the weather was to make a great many 
teas go off, especially in the district where this tea 
came from. This was due to damp. 
Mr. John Mhephy, foreman at defendant's ware- 
house, also gave evidence. 
This was the case for the defendants. Mr. Reid 
and Mr. Finlay having addressed the jury, 
His Lobdship, in summing up the oase to the 
jury, said they must show by their verdict whether the 
plaintiffs had satisfied them that the damage was 
due to want of care on the part of defendants. If 
they were satisfied from the evidence that the 
plaintiffs had established the fact that the defendants 
had been guilty of some neglect of duty or want 
of care of the plaiutiffs' goods, then the plaintiffs 
were entitled to a verdict, with damages. On the 
other hand, if the case was not established to their 
satisfaction, they must find for the defendants. 
The Jury left the box and retired for about half 
an hour. On tbeir return into court they found a 
verdiot for the defendants. 
His Lobdship gave judgment for the defendants 
accordingly, with costs. — Grocers' Gazette, Jan. 19th. 
CUSTOM IN THE TEA TRADE. 
Yesterday (18th iust.), in the Lord Mayor's 
Court, the case of Hodgscn* v. Caffin came on 
for hearing. It was an action brought by the 
plaiutiffs, Messrs. Hodgson & Eckett, tea brokers, 
carrying on business at 59, Eastcheap, against the de- 
* Mr. A. M.Gepp is connected with this gentleman.-- J£p. 
84 
fendants, Messrs. Caffin & Co., tea brokers, of Rood- 
lane, E. C., to recover the sum of £22 16s 4d, which 
plaintiffs alleged they had lost by reason of the defen- 
dants refusing to carry out a contract to purchase a cer- 
tain quantity of Indian tea. — Mr. J. Hodgson, one of 
the plaintiffs, stated that on the 30th of April last the 
defendants purchased from his firm at a sale by auction 
27 chests of pekoe tea at 9£d per lb. Prior to that the 
tea had been bulked and samples were sent to the 
defendants, who afterwards wrote to the plaintiffs de- 
clining to complete their contract on the ground that 
the tea was inferior. The plaiutiffs wrote back stating 
that the tea had been sold by auction, and the defend- 
ants would have to complete. The plaintiffs had to re- 
sell by auction. The 27 chests of tea were sold to the 
defendants for £108 (is, but on the 1st of August were 
resold, the price realised making a loss of £,'Z'2 16s 4d, 
which was now sought for. Cross-examined by Mr. 
Fullerton : It is not the custom of the tea trade that 
if you sell for an unpaid prompt, the tea must be sold 
for cash. — His Lordship : Supposing the jury find that 
the tea was inferior, the plaintiffs' only remedy was to 
resell for cash. — Mr. Fullerton : This action is brought 
against us to recover damages for a resale, but accord- 
ing to the custom of the tea trade, the plaintiffs cannot 
sucoeed. I am going to prove by one of the best tea 
experts in Londou that if the plaiutiffs take the tea and 
sell it as they have done they cannot sue, as they had 
no right to resell, because the tea was our property 
after the auctioneer's hammer had fallen. The plain- 
tiffs must abide by the usual custom of the tea trade. — 
Witness stated that when the notice came from the de- 
fendants that the tea was defective he went to the 
docksand sampled the bulk of the tea himself. Evidence 
having been given as to the bulking and mixing of the 
tea, Mr. Fullerton, for the defence, contended that the 
first sale was one by sample, but the bulk was inferior to 
sample, so they were justified in retusiug to carry on 
their contract. — Mr. Edward Caffin deposed that he 
had known the tea trade since 1861. He received in 
April the notice from the plaintiffs of the sale of the 
Iudiau teas in question. On the day previous to the 
3ale one of his clerks went and drew a sample, no doubt 
from the show chest. A Mr. Hayley attended the sale 
on behalf of the witness, and after the sale on the 1st 
of May samples of tea were drawn from the bulk. In 
consequence of what was found more samples were 
drawn on the 4th of May. They were bad, and witness 
refused to pay the deposit and returned the weight 
notes. About the 14th of June Mr. Hodgson called on 
witness and said that as he was a new merchant with 
witness he did not wish to reopen the case, but the tea 
would fall on his hands. Witness told him that in that 
case he would do everything in his power to help him, 
but refused to complete his contract, stating that the 
cause was irregularity in the different chests of tea. 
Mr. Hodgson demurred, but partly admitted that. The 
next heard was this action. — Mr. Lewis, secretary of 
the Tea Brokers' Association, and Mr. Walter Odell 
having given evidence as to the custom, the jury stop- 
ped the case, and found a verdict for the plaintiffs for 
the full amount claimed. Judgment for the plaintiffs 
for £22 16s 4d with costs.— Grocers' Gazette, Jan. 19th. 
_ ♦ 
WHITE -ANTS AND LIVING PLANTS. 
The following paragraph occurs in the Indian 
Agriculturist : — 
A controversy is going on in Southern India as 
to the probability of white-ants destroying plants. 
A correspondent writing to a contemporary says 
that such is the fact, which is borne out by native 
gardeners who are of opinion that these pests are 
injurious to vegetable life. They say that a plant 
is seen to be siokly and out of sorts and at last 
dies ; when the dead stock is pulled up it is found 
that white-ants are entangled in its roots. The 
point however to be ascertained is whether the 
ants attack the plants before or after they have 
withered away. The insects as is well known attack 
1 dead wood and not living plants whioh are fresh, 
