208 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ March 9, 1882. 
Twigg, the resident engineer of the Hemel Hempstead "Waterworks, 
was entrusted with the charge of the incubators. 
Through an unfortunate mistake as to the date at which the contest 
was to commence, Miss Arnold neglected in the first instance to 
furnish full instructions as to the management of Yoitellier’s incu¬ 
bator. She had some time previously sent to the Rev. H. Peel, one 
of the Secretaries of the contest, Yoitellier’s book, which contained 
printed directions. These Mr. Peel had translated as instructions for 
Mr. Twigg in working the machine. As is now a matter of history 
the Christy incubator distanced all competitors, while the Yoitellier 
did not hatch out one chicken. As Yoitellier’s has in other hands 
produced very successful results and is largely used in France, Miss 
Arnold was apparently much disappointed at its failure at Hemel 
Hempstead, and inclined to attribute it to some want of fair play. 
There was considerable correspondence on the subject at the time, 
but it ended, as such correspondence usually does, without any definite 
result being arrived at. 
At the Hemel Hempstead Show of 1879 a similar contest was 
organised. This was upon a different basis, as each competitor was 
required to send a representative to work his incubator. Again, this 
year there were several entries, but with the exception of Mr. Christy 
none of the former competitors were present; the other exhibitors be¬ 
sides Mr. Christy being Messrs. Howell, Watson, and Cashmore. The 
room in which the contest was liefld was upon this occasion placed 
under the care of Mr. Twigg, who was entrusted with the keys, and 
by whom the competitors were to be admitted three times each day for 
the purpose of attending to their incubators. Messrs. Howell, Watson, 
and Cashmore either attended personally or sent representatives to 
manage their incubators, but Mr. Christy preferred that his should be 
managed by some person in the neighbourhood previously unac¬ 
quainted with incubator management, and a Mr. Currant was accord¬ 
ingly selected as his representative. The contest went on smoothly 
enough for some time, but, as it afterwards appeared, there was some 
little unpleasantness arising out of the alleged prompting by Mr. 
Twigg of Mr. Christy’s representative. At the close of the contest 
Mr. Christy wa3 again found to be the winner, although on this 
occasion the other competitors were more successful in hatching than 
the unsuccessful ones in 1878 had been. 
A protest was signed by the unsuccessful exhibitors and handed to 
the Committee, but this was overruled and the prize awarded to 
Mr. Christy. 
Miss Arnold, though not herself an exhibitor at this latter contest, 
seems for some reason to have taken up the cause of the unsuccessful 
exhibitors, and shortly after the contest she published as an adver¬ 
tisement in this Journal and elsewhere the protest with the signatures 
of the unsuccessful exhibitors attached. From subsequent corre¬ 
spondence it appeared, and it was at the trial admitted by Miss 
Arnold, that she had no direct authority from the protestors for so 
publishing their protest. 
At a meeting of the Committee of the Poultry Club held at the 
Crystal Palace during the Show of 1879, Miss Arnold attended and 
made a personal statement of certain alleged causes of complaint 
against the management of the Hemel Hempstead incubator contest. 
The Poultry Show had been held under Poultry Club rules, but there 
seemed to be some uncertainty as to whether or not that brought any 
question arising in reference to the incubator contest within the 
jurisdiction of the Club. This doubt was, however, set aside, as it 
was alleged that the conduct of some members of the Club was 
in question, and that that would be sufficient to give the Club 
jurisdiction. 
Miss May Arnold was requested by the Committee of the Poultry 
Club to put her complaint into writing. This she did subsequently, 
and it was upon that complaint that the present action was based. 
The plaintiff relied upon the following paragraphs as libellous— 
“ The trials have been rendered fallacious, and the Hemel Hempstead Com¬ 
mittee foiled, as well as the competitors, by the defective moral sense of an 
individual concerned (F. G-. Twigg), and its consequences. 1 do not assert of 
this man that he has felt himself to be guilty of what he has done and said, or 
he would scarcely have criminated himself ; but that, from defective moral 
education or otherwise, he has so acted as to prove himself wholly unfit to be in 
any charge, much less in principal ones, in connection with what the Committee 
intended to be important comparative trials ; while from the public belief that 
this plan of the Hemel Hempstead contests was a sound one, the honest scientific 
labour of one inventor after another has been unduly affected to its hurt .... 
F. G. Twigg went afterwards to the manufacturer of the hydro-incubator, 
which alone he had worked with any success, for a douceur, and received 
two guineas.” 
The matter was several times considered by the Committee of the 
Poultry Club. The Rev. H. Peel, who was at that time Treasurer of 
the Club, and ex-officio a member of the Committee of the Club as 
well as Secretary of the Hemel Hempstead contests, received in 
common with the other members of the Committee a written copy of 
Miss Arnold’s letter of complaint. To this he subsequently sent an 
answer in writing. 
The consideration of the matter by the Club was adjourned ; and 
prior to the meeting of the Committee at Oxford in June, 1880, when 
the matter was finally dealt with by the Club, Mr. Peel had Miss 
Arnold’s letter containing the alleged libel and his reply thereto 
printed. Copies of this print were forwarded by Mr. Peel to the 
Secretary of the Poultry Club, and apparently also given to mem¬ 
bers of the Local Committee at Hemel Hempstead, and in this way 
the fact of Miss Arnold having written such a letter became known to 
the plaintiff, who shortly afterwards commenced the present action. 
Mr. Charles, Q.C., and Mr. Channel were for the plaintiff. Mr. 
Willis, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. H. Smith for the defendant. 
An attempt Was made at an early stage of the proceedings to effect 
a compromise, but this was unsuccessful. The plaintiff went himself 
into the box, and stated that the present of £2, given to him by Mr. 
Christy the successful competitor after the 1878 contest, was so given 
with the knowledge and consent of the Committee. He denied that 
he had during the 1879 contest constantly prompted Durrant, but 
admitted that on one occasion when Durrant had apparently for¬ 
gotten to replace the drawer of eggs in Mr. Christy’s incubator, he 
had drawn his attention to the fact. This, however, was done pub¬ 
licly, and after consultation with the clerk who w T as present for the 
purpose of registering the temperatures. 
The other witnesses for the plaintiff were. the Rev. H. Peel, Mr. 
Christy, Mr. 0. E. Cresswell, as the then Secretary of the Poultry 
Club, Mr. Leno, who acted as judge m the contest, and one or two 
members of the Hemel Hempstead Committee. 
For the defence, Miss May Arnold and Messrs. Watson and Howell 
were the principal witnesses. It appeared from the evidence of the 
two last-named witnesses, that in addition to the admitted incident 
of the plaintiff giving Durrant a reminder as to the egg drawer, there 
had been one or two circumstances which might give rise to suspicion 
of unfair dealing. Mr. Watson stated that, suspecting that the egg 
drawer had been taken out of his incubator in his absence, he placed 
a bit of wood in such a position that it would fall if the drawer were 
touched, and that on several occasions he found the wood had so 
fallen. On one occasion some gallons of water were alleged to be 
missing from Mr. Howell’s incubator, and upon still another the 
regulator of Mr. Cashmore’s had been meddled with. This latter 
incident was explained by the plaintiff as having been caused by a 
cat, which was immediately upon its discovery killed by him. 
Mr. Howell in his evidence attached much weight to the fact that 
the plantiff had drawn Durrant’s attention to the circumstance that 
he had left the egg drawer out. This elicited the question from the 
Judge as to whether he (Mr. Howell) would have liked to have won 
the contest through the accidental omission of Mr. Christy’s man to 
replace the egg drawer in proper time, and the comment that if he 
(Mr. Howell) would like so to win a contest it was more than the 
Judge would like to do under similar circumstances. The effect of 
Mr. Howell’s evidence was also considerably weakened by the pro 
uction of a letter written by him immediately before the close of the" 
contest, in which he did not express any disapprobation with the 
management of the contest, and spoke despairingly of his own 
chances of success. 
The defendant claimed that the communication to the Poultry Club 
was a privileged one, but any argument on this point was reserved 
until after the verdict of the jury. The defendant also pleaded 
justification. 
The jury found—first, that the publication was a libel; secondly, 
that no justification had been proved ; thirdly, that the defendant was 
actuated by express malice ; and fourthly, that the damages were £50. 
As privilege is only available as a plea in the absence of express 
malice, the finding of the jury rendered any argument as to this point 
unnecessary, and a verdict was accordingly entered for the plaintiff 
with £50 damages. 
Redcaps. —Several correspondents have written to inquire where 
these birds can be procured. Will any of our readers who have them 
for sale make the fact known through our advertisement columns ? 
METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS. 
CAMDEN SQUARE LONDON. 
Lafc. 51° 32' 40" N.; Long.0° 8'0" W.; Altitude.111 feet. 
DATE. 
9 A.M. 
IN THE DAY. 
1882. 
February. 
March. 
i a 
Hygrome¬ 
ter. 
Direction 
of Wind. 
| l'emp. of 
Soil at 
1 foot. 
Shade Tem¬ 
perature. 
Radiation 
Temperature. 
Rain, 
Dry. 
Wet. 
Max. 
Min. 
In 
sun. 
On 
grass. 
Sun. 2(5 
Inches. 
29.151 
deg. 
51.4 
deg. 
50.0 
S. 
deg. 
44.1 
cleg. 
56.2 
deg. 
49.2 
deg 
78.2 
deg. 
47.8 
In. 
Mon. 27 
29.125 
48.9 
45.6 
s.w. 
44.8 
53.0 
44.4 
83.5 
39.6 
0.126 
Tues. 28 
29.584 
41.3 
4 ».4 
E. 
44.8 
49.5 
39.4 
56.3 
40.6 
0.377 
Wed. 1 
28.970 
40.7 
46.7 
w. 
44.8 
52.6 
4\0 
91.6 
41.7 
0.166 
Thurs. 2 
29.315 
44.2 
39.8 
s.w. 
44.4 
50.7 
40.3 
98.5 
36.4 
0.080 
Friday 3 
29.411 
39.9 
38.4 
E. 
43.0 
4 7.7 
34.7 
89.2 
283 
— 
Satur. 4 
29.GG5 
32.4 
32.3 
N.W. 
41.6 
48.9 
28.5 
82.5 
25.2 
— 
29.317 
43.5 
42.0 
43.9 
51.2 
39.5 
82.8 
37.1 
0.749 
REMARKS. 
26th.—Wet morning, high gusty winds ; fine afternoon and evening. 
27th.—Fine at first, showery afterwards. 
28th.—Dull damp morning; fine in middle day ; wet evening. 
1st.—Squally, high wind and show.rs ; bright sunshine at intervals. 
2nd.—Squally, rough day; hail at 1.45 r.M.; heavy shower of hail and sleet at 
4.15 p.M.; bright sunshine at intervals. 
3rd.—Fine, bright, and cold. 
4th.—Fine, hazy,and dull at first. 
Temperature almost identical with last week, and considerably above the 
average.—G. J. SYMONS. 
