I IMPORTANCE OF G OOD jf UD G 1 NG. I 6^ 
on it. But counsel for the plaintiff showed conclusively that by the “Railway and Canal Traffic 
Act (17 & 18 Viet., cap. 31) such liability continued to attach to the company, any disclaimer 
notwithstanding, unless by special contract signed by the sender they had been exempted. It 
was also held that fancy value should fairly be taken into consideration, but not to an exorbitant 
extent , and in this particular case the sum was assessed at £>\. Our own impression is that 
for poultiy damages might be recovered to the extent of about each for valuable birds, but 
not beyond ; and that in most cases, after the foregoing decision, no company would dispute such 
a demand, though they might refuse one for a larger sum. 
That all prize money should be paid, and other outstanding liabilities of any show should 
be settled promptly after closing, is so obvious as scarcely to need remark. Even the great 
Birmingham show only requires a month for these purposes, and in most cases a fortnight should 
be amply sufficient. Punctuality in this matter has a great influence on the confidence of exhibitors 
for the next occasion. 
And now we come to consider Judging — that crucial proceeding at every show, upon which 
so many anxieties and hopes depend. That good judging must be more than anything essential to 
the healthy condition of the poultry fancy, is so self-evident as almost to be a truism. Almost 
everything depends upon it, for let there once arise a well-founded conviction that judging is not 
at least fair and impartial, and the whole system must rapidly come to an end. That it does not, 
but that shows multiply in number and increase their entries on every hand, is conclusive proof 
that, on the whole, the judges chiefly employed deserve the confidence reposed in them by 
exhibitors. Mistakes cannot of course be always avoided, and we have ever found the most 
honoured judges in England the most ready to acknowledge such if fairly and courteously pointed 
out. Considering the hours of special study it sometimes requires for an amateur to decide which 
is the best of even his own birds, which he has himself reared from the shell, it is simply impossible 
that judges should in one day decide absolutely without error amongst such heavy classes as are 
now frequently subjected to their awards. The “ordinary run” of birds are often now superior to 
those which took prizes in the early days of the poultry fancy, and the difficulty of deciding 
between them is proportionately increased. When, therefore, an outcry is raised for “correct 
awards,” if it is meant that every award is to be beyond challenge, the demand is simply impossible 
of satisfaction : no system and no judges can ever satisfy it. What may be demanded are, the 
strictest integrity, the highest ability, recognised principles of arbitration, and fair time to bring 
these to bear ; and it is in relation to these that our few remarks will be directed. 
In regard to integrity, we have already remarked that the confidence which, as years pass on, 
continues to be reposed in the most valued English judges, is a very simple proof of character 
beyond corruption. We may add that we have taken the trouble to investigate personally some 
half-dozen definite charges against judges of repute, and we not only found in every case that they 
were utterly without foundation, but that in several cases the general conduct of the complainants 
would not bear examination. We have seen scores of times beginners in the fancy, who happened 
luckily to possess birds good enough, wrest the prizes of the year from all those veteran exhibitors 
who have been supposed to “rig the market” with the judges so effectually. Should it ever be 
* The words of the Act are, “ Notwithstanding any notice, condition, or declaration made and given by such company contrary 
thereto, or in anywise limiting such liability, every such notice, condition, or declaration being hereby declared null and void 
though special contracts, signed by the sender, are expressly admitted. 
In another case, decided in the Court of Common Pleas, in May, 1872, Mr. South recovered ^20 from the Lancashire and 
Vorkshire Railway Company, for the death of five pigeons caused by delay on that Company s line. 
