506 JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
it 
Regent’s Park in April of the present year, when a certificate 
was awarded for it; and though the specimen was only of 
moderate size, the richness of the colours indicated the value of 
the plant in a young state. The introducers have favoured us 
with the accompanying woodcut, which w r ill convey a very fair 
idea of the variety. 
THE POTATO CROP. 
I GREW altogether, in different parts of the country, thirteen 
acres of Potatoes last year, and intended to send a detailed report 
to the Journal, but was too unwell to do so. It will perhaps 
suffice to say that the experiment was very successful as far as 
regards growing good crops, with but very little disease ; but 
Potatoes have been so plentiful that the price has ruled low. 
Good samples of Magnum Bonum have been sold lately at Is. a 
peck retail, and the smaller tubers at 8^., while large quantities 
of Early Rose have been sold during the season at 8 d. a peck. 
I do not think we have had much occasion to trouble the foreigner 
this year for Potatoes ; certainly not anything like to the extent 
of former years, and, as I say in my book, I do not think we need 
do so now we have the Magnum Bonum and Scotch Champion to 
depend upon. These Potatoes will save us millions of money. It 
is to be hoped we shall soon have some more of the same cha¬ 
racter. I have one seedling, a second early, which is promising. 
The price of the Magnum Bonum this year has certainly been 
rather too low to be pleasant for the grower, but I think we 
should endeavour to meet the lowness of price by following less 
expensive modes of cultivation than are generally adopted. I am 
rather inclined to modify my remarks with regard to the distance 
between the rows. Three feet may be all very well in rich soil or 
where it has been highly manured, but where Potatoes are grown 
in fields of ordinary farm land, which is not generally very 
rich, I should prefer 2 feet 6 inches or 2 feet 8 inches for the 
Magnum Bonum. 
The crops here are looking very well at present, and promise a 
good yield, having escaped the frost of the early part of this 
month.— The Author op the Book on Potato Disease. 
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE EXHIBITION OF 
1851 v. THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY AND 
PERCIVAL DE CASTRO, A DEBENTURE HOLDER. 
The following is the full text of the judgment of Mr. Justice Fry, 
as delivered in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice 
on the 15th inst. 
Mr. Justice Fry : — This is an action brought by the Commissioners 
of the Exhibition of 1851 against the Horticultural Society and the 
representative of certain debentures issued by the Society, in which 
the plaintiffs seek to gain possession of the Horticultural Gardens at 
Kensington. 
The agreement of the 24th of July is that which constitutes the 
principal bond between the respective parties to this action. It is 
quite true that there are subsequent agreements, by one of which an 
increase was made in the sum payable for rent or in the name of rent, 
and by some of the subsequent agreements certain conditions were 
imposed on the right of re-entry. I refer to them now only to 
observe that Mr. North, on behalf of the plaintiffs, has contended 
that those subsequent agreements create no difficulty in the way of 
the relief w r hich he asks, and the learned counsel for the defendants 
have not insisted that they do create such a difficulty; and, therefore, 
my whole attention in the subsequent part of my judgment will be 
directed to the agreement of the 24th of July, 1860. 
The circumstances under which that agreement was entered into 
were shortly these:—The Commissioners were constituted for the 
purpose of promoting certain objects connected with art and science. 
They were the owners of considerable property in the neighbourhood 
of the intended gardens, and they were the owners of the site of the 
gardens itself. The Horticultural Society had received contributions 
to the extent of £10,000 to be laid out upon the gardens, and the 
substance of the agreement between the parties was this, That the 
Commissioners should make over to the Horticultural Society the 
land in question for a term of thirty-one years ; that the Commis¬ 
sioners should expend on improvements in land and levelling, and 
the erection of arcades, a sum of £50,000 : and that the Horticultural 
Society should expend on the land £10,000 which they had already 
received by way of contributions, and a further sum of £40,000, 
which they intended to raise by v r ay of debentures ; and that the 
receipts arising from the gardens should be applied in a certain 
specified manner between the parties to the contract. Now that 
manner was shortly this : It was provided that out of the receipts 
from the gardens there should be retained by the Society “such a 
sum as shall from time to time be allowed by the Committee herein¬ 
after mentioned” in respect, first, of the expenses of the Chiswick 
gardens, secondly the expenses of the Society generally, and thirdly 
the current expenses of the Kensington gardens. Then the instru¬ 
ment declared that the allowance should from time to time proceed, 
and be made upon a fair and reasonable basis, and so as to keep and 
maintain the gardens and all the buildings, improvements, and orna¬ 
ments upon and belonging thereto in thoroughly good order and 
condition. Then, secondly, the agreement provided that “ there 
shall be then retained by the Society out of such receipts ” the inter¬ 
est at the rate of five per cent, upon the debentures—£40,000—or 
such other sum as should be subsisting. Then, thirdly, it provided 
“ there shall then be paid by the Society to the said Commissioners 
as rent the yearly sum of £2145, if the receipts shall be adequate for 
such payment after retaining to the Society the sums authorised to 
be retained by them under the first and second heads of the present 
clause ; but otherwise such a sum only as shall be equal from year to 
year as the residue of the receipts over and above the sums so in 
precedence.” Then the instrument provided that “if there shall 
remain any surplus over and above the said several payments herein¬ 
before directed to be made or retained out of the ‘ receipts from the 
gardens,’ there shall be paid to the Commissioners for their own use 
and as additional rent yearly a sum equal to half such surplus.” A 
moiety of the surplus, therefore, was retained by the Horticultural 
Society, and it was provided that they should devote and apply 
towards the liquidation of the £40,000 debenture debt three-fifths of 
the money actually received by them from time to time in respect of 
the receipts from the gardens after payment of the three sums 
directed to be paid under Clause 14 of the agreement. 
Then comes in Clause 18 the provision with regard to re-entry, 
upon which the plaintiffs are now insisting. “ In case it shall happen 
after the expiration of the first five years of the lease that the sum 
or sums payable thereunder to the Commissioners as rent shall fail in 
every one of any five consecutive years subsequent to the first five 
years to be equal to the sum of £2145 per annum, then and in any 
such case it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to re-enter upon 
the said demised premises, and to resume full and absolute possession 
thereof with all improvements therein and all erections thereon, and 
with all the plants, shrubs, and trees in and about the same, and out 
of whatever fund the same may have been paid for, and that without 
making any compensation whatever to the Society.” Then there 
was a proviso that the right of re-entry should not arise if the Com¬ 
missioners from the commencement of the term had received upon 
the average £2145. 
The plaintiffs allege that in the five years beginning from the 1st 
June, 1873, and ending on the 31st May, 1878, the sum payable to 
them as a rent had failed to reach the sum of £2145. That sum was 
increased to £2400 ; but that is immaterial for the present purpose, 
and they have shown to my satisfaction that nothing in fact has 
been paid in those five years in respect of rent. 
That being the nature of the claim of the plaintiffs, the defendants 
have resorted to a great variety of arguments to resist the plaintiffs’ 
claim. There are many of those which I think I need only refer to 
by saying that they do not weigh in my mind at all. It has been 
said that there has been a defect of pleading, because the statement 
of claim has not stated the exact date at which the alleged forfeiture 
arose ; and certain old cases were referred to with regard to plead¬ 
ings in ejectment before pleadings in ejectment were abolished, as 
they were by the Common Law Procedure Act years and years ago. 
Those cases appear to me to be immaterial. The pleading in this 
case if not adequate was sufficient at any rate when it came on for 
hearing, because the defendants if they were embarrassed might have 
applied to have the pleadings amended. 
Then it has been said that a demand for rent was necessary, and 
no demand was made. But it is apparent, from what I have read, 
that the right of re-entry in question is not a right of re-entry for 
non-payment of rent, but because a certain sum arising from a par¬ 
ticular fund does not equal a given named sum. It is a default of 
equation, not re-entry for non-payment of rent; and the idea that 
the rent that did not exist should be demanded appears to me some¬ 
what difficult to understand. 
It has been further argued, on behalf of the debenture holders, 
that a partnership has been constituted between the Commissioners 
and the Horticultural Society, and that for some reason or other, 
which I am afraid I fail to apprehend, that partnership would prevent 
one of the partners from enforcing his right of re-entry if it existed. 
In my view, if one partner lends to a partner whose rights are de¬ 
fined by an instrument, and lends to that partner on the faith of 
that instrument, the instrument must have effect given to it, although 
a partnership may be constituted by it. A lender who lends on the 
faith of a term determinable under the instrument of partnership 
cannot say that that term is not determinable. 
There remains, however,in my judgment a very important question 
for consideration, and that arises from the facts with regard to 
the Committee. I have already pointed out that the instrument of 
I860 proposes the appointment of a Committee. That Committee 
was to be appointed for the purpose of regulating the amount to be 
retained by the Society. In each year it was to consist of three 
members appointed by the Commissioners and three by the Horti¬ 
cultural Society, and was to be presided over by one of the members 
appointed by the Commissioners. I have pointed out that the 
instrument of I860 contemplated the raising of debentures upon the 
faith of it, and the debentures were raised on the faith of that 
instrument, and the sums that were provided for the payment of 
interest and the payment of principal by that instrument were by the 
