.“September 12, 1889. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
215 
S PORTS of a distinct character are always valuable in any section 
of Chrysanthemums, but none has ever assumed the impor¬ 
tance, obtained the notoriety, and been the subject of so much 
litigation as the early flowering Mrs. H. Hawkins, a golden variety 
■of the Madame Castex Desgrange type. Few of those who saw it 
•when first exhibited last year could have anticipated that its history 
would have become so interesting, that it would have been made 
the subject of an action to recover heavy damages, or that the 
opinion of some of the leading Chrysanthemum experts of the 
present time would be in request to determine its distinctness from 
or identity with other varieties. All this has, however, taken place 
this year, and a dispute of an unprecedented character in the 
■Chrysanthemum world will shortly be brought to a termination by 
the decision of special arbitrators. 
The history of the case is briefly this, some of the facts having 
been long familiar to those concerned with these plants, while 
others were elicited during the course of the inquiry. At the 
meeting of the Royal Horticultural Society in the Drill Hall, 
Westminster, on Sept. 11th, 1888, Messrs. Hawkins & Bennett, 
nurserymen and market growers of Twickenham, exhibited before 
the Floral Committee a golden sport from George, or more 
properly, Gustav Wermig (itself a pale yellow sport from the 
white Madame C. Desgrange), and a first-class certificate was 
awarded for it. On the following day (Sept. 12th) the National 
Chrysanthemum Society held their annual Exhibition of early 
•varieties at the Royal Aquarium, Westminster, and to the Floral 
Committee of this Society Messrs. Hawkins & Bennett also 
submitted their new sport, with the result that a first-class certi¬ 
ficate was again awarded. At this Exhibition Mr. T. S. Ware of 
the Hale Farm Nurseries, Tottenham, showed “ a new Chrysan¬ 
themum ” of the same type and colour as Mrs. Hawkins, and in 
the opinion of most of the members they were the same variety. 
Messrs. Hawkins & Bennett’s plants and blooms were, however, in 
much better condition and were considered to show the character 
more fully, and in accordance with a rule guiding the Floral Com¬ 
mittee in its action the certificate was awarded to the better of the 
two exhibits, the slight difference noticeable being attributed to 
cultural causes. All was clear up to this point, but then the 
difficulties commenced. 
At the time of exhibition, or shortly afterwards, Mr. T. S. 
Ware’s plant was named Golden Fleece, and in October of the 
same year a circular was issued containing particulars, which 
led to the legal proceedings subsequently taken. Prior to this it 
appears Mr. Ware had an interview with Messrs. Hawkins and 
Bennett, at which he offered £10 for the stock of the certificated 
variety Mrs. Hawkins, a price considered by the former as ridicu¬ 
lously low, and they declined to sell until they had decided to 
send it out in the usual way. Mr. Ware’s first printed statement 
issued to the public was as follows : — 
‘‘October, 1888. New early-flowering Chrysanthemum of 
special merit. I have much pleasure in drawing your kind atten¬ 
tion to a new early yellow flowering Chrysanthemum, flowering 
now, and thus grandly filling up an awkward gap which the early 
frosts have made in taking away outside flowers, such as Dahlias, 
Asters, and the like. This variety was selected last year, and has 
this season proved itself quite permanent, and will, I think, with- 
No. 481.— Vol. XIX., Third Series. 
out the shadow of a doubt, prove to be identical with the variety 
which was awarded a first-class certificate by the Royal Horticul¬ 
tural Society on September 11th, 1888, and by the National Chrys¬ 
anthemum Society on September 12th, 1888. Unfortunately at 
that time my plants were not in good condition, being somewhat 
later than those exhibited, so that I was unable to compare notes 
very fully; the flowers, however, of both sports have been shown 
to some of our leading Chrysanthemum experts, aud they unre¬ 
servedly assert that the two plants are identical. I have given it 
the provisional name of Golden Fleece (syn. ‘ Mrs. Hawkins ’), 
and shall be very happy to send a bloom to any of my customers 
who would like to see it. The following is a description of it : 
Another superb sport belonging to the Madame Desgrange section. 
The colour is of a most intense mellow golden hue, with nothing 
to approach it amongst the early flowering varieties already in 
cultivation, quite distinct from, and altogether eclipsing the 
sulphury yellow of G. Wermig, and flowering about one month 
later, thus connecting the early flowering with the late varieties. 
It partakes of all the good qualities of the Madame DesgraDge 
family, but in some soils it is a matter of some 6 inches dwarfer 
than the other members of that section ; it flowers in September 
and October.” 
Some complaints seem to have been urged against this circular, 
and in the spring of 1889 the special trade offer of Chrysanthemums 
was issued in which appeared an illustration and description of 
“Mrs. Hawkins” with no reference to the “Golden Fleece,” and 
the same omission was noticeable in the spring catalogue published 
shortly afterwards. Following this came another Chrysanthemum 
circular in which “ Golden Fleece ” was substituted for “ Mrs. 
Hawkins’’with the same illustration. In'the meantime, Messrs. 
Hawkins & Bennett had commenced proceedings against Mr. Ware, 
and having reserved their entire stock for later distribution, con¬ 
tended that their intended sale had been damaged owing to the 
defendant having adopted the title of their variety, which they also 
maintained was quite distinct from that sent out from Tottenham. 
It was ultimately resolved, however, to submit the case to arbitra¬ 
tion, Messrs. William Paul, R. Ker, and Steel being appointed to 
adjudicate in the matter, Tuesday last, September 10th, being the 
date chosen, when the case was heard in Chambers at 64, Chancery 
Lane, Mr. Grain appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. Loehnis for 
the defendant. 
Numerous witnesses were called, and it was brought out in 
the course of evidence that the same sport has appeared in no 
less than four places. First it was noticed in Mr. Heath’s nursery 
at Southgate, and from this stock Mr. Ware subsequently obtained 
three “ stools ” in exchange, under the condition that it was not to 
be sold before the autumn of 1888. From the same stock Mr. Ware 
had 500 cuttings early in 1889, and Messrs. Hawkins & Bennett 
bought twelve old stools in February of the same year. In 1887 
Messrs. Laing & Sons of Forest Hill obtained a sport in their nur¬ 
sery of the same character, but did not send it out because their 
stock was insufficient, though a plant was shown for comparison 
with the others to prove their identity. Mr. Billinghurst of South 
Norwood secured a sport of the same character from G. Wermig 
in 1887, and also exhibited a plant bearing large flowers, but some¬ 
what older than the others, and consequently a little paler in colour. 
The evidence of the numerous experts called proved that these 
were all practically one variety, and several instances were given 
of identical sports occurring about the same time in different col¬ 
lections of plants. 
The next question to be settled was whether it was justifiable 
for one person to adopt the name of a variety for which another 
exhibitor had obtained a certificate, and the identity of the varie¬ 
ties being determined this became a comparatively simple matter. 
It was the general opinion that no other course could be adopted, 
that the award of a certificate stamped the variety as distinct under 
its special name, and any other title must be sunk under the 
accepted one as a synonym. 
Many questions were asked to ascertain what was the com¬ 
mercial value of certificates, or the object in awarding them, 
if others could share in the advantages conferred, and it was 
No. 2137.— Vol. LXXXI., Old Series. 
