THE FLORIST. 
259 
tesse de Noe is a crimson Rose : a delicate grower. Celina is as yet 
the best of the dark crimson Moss Roses. 
The Prolific Moss, or Gracilis, is now an old variety, the character 
of which is not so well known or appreciated as it deserves. It is 
exactly like the old Moss Rose, but much more dwarf in its habit, 
and most prolific in flowers; it is a very eligible variety for potting', 
for forcing, or for forming beds. There are many varieties of Moss 
Roses introduced into catalogues that are now only worthy the 
attention of the collector; such are,—A Feuilles Luisantes, Angelique 
Quetier, Blush (Hooker), Brilliant, Catherine de Wurtemberg, Char¬ 
lotte de Sor, Delphinie, D’Orleans, Globuleuse, Helene Mauget, 
Lansezeur, Louise Colet, Miniature (Rivers), Princess Royal (Rivers), 
Rosinella, Striped, Varacel, Vieillard, and probably some others. 
Nurseries, Saivhridgeworth. 
COURT versus POOR MAN’S GROWING FLOWERS. 
Our facetious contemporary Punch is surely carrying his joking too 
far, when he pretends to have picked the following report out of the 
Leicester Mercury. 
“ Flowers ‘out of place.’— It is a case tried at the Leicester Borough 
Court, a Mr. Hildvard Recorder and Judge : — 
“ Liggins v. J. Shaw. — Claim 1/. 15s. for garden crop. Plaintiff said he had 
entered into defendant’s service, and in addition to his wages was to have the 
use of a piece of garden-ground. In June last, when he had got the ground into 
good order, and had well stocked it with vegetables, he was suddenly dismissed, 
defendant telling him to get the garden-stuff valued, and he would pay for it. 
This was accordingly done, and the value put on was the amount sued for, 
which defendant refused to pay. Defendant now said plaintiff might have the 
vegetables; but it appearing he had formerly refused this proposition, the Court 
made an order for 1/. 13s., deducting 2s. for flowers, which it considered out of 
place in a cottager's garden .” 
Flowers out of place in a cottager’s garden! ! No, no; Punch 
must not try to persuade us that any court could have pronounced 
such a decision. But if it should turn out that one really has done 
so, then we say that it is contrary to the opinion of all the courts 
we are acquainted with. They have invariably given a verdict in 
favour of flowers, even w r hen they were the produce of the poorest 
man’s garden; in fact, the courts have always assumed a more 
cheerful aspect on the appearance of such a cause. Even Bolt Court, 
where we took our chop the other day on the way to our printer’s, 
gave a pleasing verdict in favour of sundry Verbenas and pots of 
Nasturtiums, which that court held under its especial protection. 
True, like other clients, they seemed to long for a purer atmosphere, 
looking attenuated and worn, like Chancery suitors; and in very 
charity we could have carted them into the country for a little fresh 
air, and to revive their drooping spirits. We repeat, if such a ver¬ 
dict as the one we allude to has been pronounced, then we say, strip 
the court of wig and gown, and turn him out of court for ever. 
Flowers in the poor man’s garden, say we ! 
