September 21, 1889. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
45 
Turner, Slough, had a beautiful single kind named 
Gertrude, rose, with a white and yellow zone at the base. 
Pompon kinds of merit were Juliette, yellow, tipped 
crimson ; Admiration, red, tipped white ; Vivid, 
scarlet; Juno, white and purple centre; W. Searle, 
scarlet; and Rosalind, creamy white with yellow edges. 
He also showed some exhibition kinds. A vote of 
thanks was awarded to Messrs. John Laing & Sons 
for a group of Chrysanthemums, consisting chiefly 
of Pompons, such as St. Crouts, Flora, Mrs. 
Burrell, and Madame Olivart. Japanese kinds were 
Madame Desgranges, G. Wermig, and Grace Attick. 
They received a vote of thanks. Messrs. Dobbie 
& Co., Rothesay, exhibited a fine strain of selected 
French Marigolds. One variety was of a rich crimson- 
brown, a second of a pale yellow, while a third, and 
the best, was striped. All three were double ; but single 
striped kinds were also shown. The Committee com¬ 
mended the strain. Mr. J. Green, Dereham, Norfolk, 
showed a Black Prince Dahlia. Mr. F. Ross, gardener 
to Sir Geo. Macleay, Pendell Court, Bletchingley, exhi¬ 
bited some splendid specimens of Aphelandra cristata, 
for which he was awarded a Cultural Commendation, 
and a rose-flowered Hibiscus. Messrs. H. Cannell & 
Sons, Swanley, showed three Cactus Dahlias named 
H. Cannell, Eynsford Yellow, and Kentish Sun 
respectively. Mr. Hawkins, Hillingdon, showed some 
Cactus and Pompon Dahlias. Messrs. C. Kimberley & 
Son, Coventry, showed single Dahlias. Mr. R. Dean, 
Ealing, exhibited some Chinese Pinks and African 
Marigolds. Mr. G. Stevens, Putney, had some new 
Japanese Chrysanthemums ; and Mr. Geo. Phippen, 
Reading, exhibited a basket of a seedling Coleus. 
At the meeting of the Fruit Committee, large collections 
of Apples, Pears, and Grapes were exhibited. A Silver 
Banksian Medal was awarded to Messrs. Win, Paul & 
Son for a collection of fruit consisting of seventy 
dishes of Apples, and thirty-two dishes of Pears. 
Amongst the latter were good samples of Doyenne 
Boussoch, Gratioli, Verulam, and others. Good Apples 
were Cox’s Pomona, Belle de Bois, Potts’ Seedling, 
Lord Derby, Peasgood’s Nonsuch, and others. A 
similar award was made to William Roupell, Esq., 
Harvey Lodge, Roupell Park, for a collection mostly of 
small fruiting Grapes, seldom seen in this country, 
such as American Strawberry, a small red fragrant 
kind ; July Frontignan, Purple Constantia, Old Black 
Frontignan, Primavis Frontignan, white ; Ascot Fron¬ 
tignan, of fine flavour ; Chasselas Musque, white and 
equally good ; Dr. Hogg, white, with a delicious aroma ; 
Muscat of Hungary, the best white grown in Hungary, 
and several other more popular sorts. A Bronze 
Banksian Medal was awarded to Messrs. J. Laing & 
Sons, Forest Hill, for a collection of Apples, including 
fine samples of Eclinville, Peasgood’s Nonsuch, 
Warner’s King, New Hawthornden, Frogmore Prolific, 
Emperor Alexander, and others. A smaller collec¬ 
tion was shown by Messrs. Paul & Son, Cheshunt, 
in which were good samples of Eclinville Seedling, 
Lane’s Prince Albert, Mere de Menage, Keswick Codlin, 
and others. A Cultural Commendation was awarded to 
Mr. C. Edwards, Newton House, Brackley, for fine 
samples of Lord Suffield. Small lots were shown by 
Mr. Charles Ross, Welford Park, Newbury, and Mr. 
G. T. Bodey, 99, Loughboro’ Park. Melons were 
shown by Mr. J. Bratton, Yeovil, Mr. Taylor, Swindon 
Hall Gardens, Cheltenham, and by Mr. G. Hawkins, 
gardener to Col. Turbervill, Bridge End, Glamor¬ 
ganshire. 
LAW NOTES. 
Hawkins & Bennett v. T. S. Wake. 
This was an action brought by Messrs. Hawkins & 
Bennett, of Twickenham, against Mr. T. S. Ware, of 
Tottenham, in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s 
Bench Division, and having by mutual consent been 
referred to arbitration, evidence was taken before 
Messrs. Ker, Paul and Steele at the Arbitration Rooms, 
Chancery Lane, E.C., on the 10th inst. Mr. J. P. 
Grain, instructed by Mr. Bernard Wilson, appeared for 
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Loehnis, instructed by Mr. 
Charles Butcher, solicitors to the N ursery and Seed 
Trade Association, Limited, was counsel for defendant. 
The plaintiffs sued the defendant (1) for damages for 
the user by him of the name of “Mrs. Hawkins” as 
applied to a Chrysanthemum ; (2) for an account of 
the plants sold by the defendant under the name of 
‘ ‘ Mrs. Hawkins ” ; (3) for an inj unction to restrain 
the user by the defendant his servants or agents of the 
name “Mrs. Hawkins,” as applied to the Chrysanthe¬ 
mum in question, and from selling any Chrysanthemum 
oot, cutting, plait or fliwer bearing that name or any 
colourable imitation thereof, and claimed £500 damage s ; 
(4) for an injunction to restrain the defendant from 
stating in his catalogue as to the “Golden Fleece,” 
“Mrs. Hawkins,” or any other Chrysanthemum that 
he was awarded first prize for the same at the exhibition 
of the National Chrysanthemum Society in September, 
1888. 
Mr. Ware’s defence was that the plant he had offered 
for sale under the name of “Mrs. Hawkins,” and sub¬ 
sequently under that of “Golden Fleece ” was identical 
with the plaintiffs, that the statement in his circulars 
and catalogue to the effect that he had been awarded 
First prize at the exhibition of the National Chrysan¬ 
themum Society in September, 1888, had reference only 
to the prize awarded to him for the general collection, 
and not the plaintiffs plant; that he had simply 
followed the custom of the trade in advertising and 
selling this plant under the name of “ Mrs. Hawkins ” ; 
and that the plaintiffs had no right of action against 
him. 
Mr. Henry Hawkins, examined by Mr. Grain, 
stated that about four years ago his firm bought plants 
of the variety Gustav Wermig, from Mr. G. Wermig, 
of Woking, and from one of them obtained the sport 
which he named “Mrs. Hawkins.” They cultivated 
this sport, and ultimately exhibited plants of it before 
the Floral Committee of the Royal Horticultural 
Society, and at the exhibition of the National Chrysan¬ 
themum Society in September, 1888, and First Class 
Certificates were awarded on both occasions. On the 
15th of September the defendant wrote to them, and 
shortly afterwards called upon them at Twickenham, 
witn reference to buying their stock, but the price he 
offered (£10) was so ridiculously small that they 
declined to sell. After that, on leaving, he said, “ If 
you don’t let me have it, I shall be up against you.” 
They thought the certificates were worth something, 
and decided to send out the plants at 18s. per dozen. 
Having given the plant the name of “Mrs. Hawkins,” 
the custom of the trade was that the one plant only 
ought to bear that name. They would have sold 1,200 
plants at 18s. per dozen this season, if it had not been 
for the threat. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Loehnis : He knew that 
Gustav Wermig sported from Madame Desgranges, but 
did not know that it was the habit of Chrysanthemums 
to sport in different places in the same r year, or that 
Gustav Wermig had sported with Messrs. Laing & Sons 
at Forest Hill, and Messrs. Heath & Son at Old South- 
gate. He did not remember having a conversation 
with Mr. William Heath in Covent Garden Market, or 
of comparing with him the flowers of their respective 
sports, but he did buy some stools off Mr. Heath in 
February last. He did not tell Mr. Ware that his 
plants were mixed, and he did not believe that they 
were. He had told Mr. Ware by letter iu September, 
1888, that “Mrs. Hawkins” would be sent out in the 
spring of 1889, but did not recollect whether he had 
ever told him he had altered his mind. Did not admit 
that the plants in the room were the same variety as 
theirs. 
Mr. Joseph Bennett confirmed the evidence given 
by his partner as to the conversation with the defendant. 
Mr. Richard Dean, Ealing, one of the judges at 
the Aquarium show in September, 1888, and a member 
of the National Chrysanthemum Society’s Floral Com¬ 
mittee, cross-examined by Mr. Loehnis, was not pre¬ 
pared to say that the plants shown by the plaintiffs 
and defendant at that show were the same, and there 
was a difference of opinion on the point among the 
members of the Floral Committee. Mr. Ware’s flowers 
did not seem to be so fully developed as the plaintiffs. 
By Mr. Grain : It had been the custom of the trade to 
regard the owner of a new variety as having solely the 
right to use the name he gives to it. 
Mr. James Walker, Whitton, examined by Mr. 
Loehnis, was present at the Drill Hall when the 
plaintiffs’ variety was certificated, hut was not at the 
Aquarium show. He had examined the plants in the 
room, and was perfectly satisfied that they were all of 
the same variety. It was the custom of the trade to 
send out circulars worded like the defendants ; and as 
the plaintiffs refused to sell, it was quite in accordance 
with the custom of the trade for the defendant to send 
out his plants as he had done. 
Mr. Gustav Wermig, Woking, examined by Mr. 
Loehnis, stated that it was lie who gave the name of 
Gustav Wermig to the yellow sport from Madame 
Desgranges, which originated in his nursery, and he 
was obliged to send it out quickly because the same 
sport appeared in four or five other places. He had sold 
100 plants to the plaintiffs. He had examined the 
plants in the room, and could not see any difference 
between them. It was the custom of the trade to adopt 
the name under which a plant had been certificated, 
and considered that it would be a swindle to send the 
same plant out under any other name. Cross-examined 
by Mr. Grain ; A certificate has a certain commercial 
value; it was a recommendation to the plant. If the 
sport had originated with him, and he did not sell it 
to Mr. Ware, the latter would be quite justified in 
sending out the same plant obtained from another 
source. He could give no reason why Mr. Ware 
changed the name to “Golden Fleece.” 
Mr. William Holmes, Hackney, honorary secretary 
of the National Chrysanthemum Society, was present 
when the plants were shown in September, 1888 ; he 
believed then that they were identical, and was still of 
the same opinion. The certificate was given to the 
plaintiff’s plant because it was the best cultivated (in 
accordance with one of the rules of the National Chry- 
themum Society’s Floral Committee), and the defendant 
could do noother thanadoptthenameof “Mrs. Hawkins” 
for his plant. Cross-examined by Mr. Grain : There 
was some commercial value in a certificate. It dis¬ 
tinguished that variety from all others, and where one 
person held the whole of the stock it increased its 
value, but it did not strengthen or minimise any rights 
which he had, independent of any certificate, to send 
out the plant in his possession under his own name. 
He thought the defendant changed the name in a weak 
moment. By Mr. Paul: If an identical sport occurred 
with two people at the same time, one had no more 
right to it than the other. 
Mr. George Gordon, Stile Villas, Gunnersbury, 
assistant editor of the Gardeners' Magazine, and a 
member of the Floral and Catalogue Committees of the 
National Chrysanthemum Society, examined by Mr. 
Loehnis : He was present when the certificate was 
awarded to the plaintiffs at the Aquarium. He was of 
opinion then that the two plants were identical, and 
was of that opinion still. Cross-examined by Mr. 
Grain : He recognised some value in a certificate, and 
considered that any person receiving one was free to do 
as he pleased as to the way in which he disposed of the 
plants to which it was given, or kept it in his own 
hands if he so choosed. If anyone else had plants 
identical with “Mrs. Hawkins,” they certainly had the 
right to use that name, and to send out the plants 
when they pleased. 
Mr. Norman Davis, Camberwell, examined by 
Mr. Loehnis, stated that it had been the custom of the 
trade to sell plants of the same variety under one 
name, and there was nothing in the custom of the 
trade to prevent anyone having plants of any particular 
variety from selling them how and when they pleased. 
Mr. Ware had certainly the right to sell his plant 
under the name of “Mrs. Hawkins.” 
Mr. Wright, Inner Temple Gardens, examined by 
Mr. Leohnis, was a member of the Floral Committee 
of the National Chrysanthemum Society, and was 
present when the certificate was given. He believed 
then the plants were identical. The granting of the 
certificate to the plaintiffs gave them no right to pre¬ 
vent the defendant from selling the plant when he liked 
under the name of “ Mrs. Hawkins.” 
Mr. W illiam Heath, Old Southgate, examined by 
Mr. Leohnis, stated that one of his firm’s plants 
of Gustav Wermig sported, and that he effected an 
exchange with the defendant, taking other plants for 
three stools, and in the spring of this yexr sold him 500 
cuttings. He restricted the defendant from sending 
out the plant until the autumn of 1888. He had sold 
some stools also to the plaintiffs after he and Mr. 
Hawkins had compared their respective varieties in 
Covent Garden Market after the showin September, 1888. 
Mr. John Laing, Forest Hill, examined by Mr. 
Loehnis, stated that he had had the same sport in 
1887. It was in all respects identical with the plaintiff’s 
sport, and he considered that he had a perfect right to 
send it out as “Mrs. Hawkins.” 
Mr. Henry Billinghitrst, florist, Selhurst, had a 
similar sport in 1887. By Mr. Ker : If he had a stock 
he should not consider that he would be doing wrong 
in using the name of “Mrs. Hawkins.” 
Mr. John Mardlin, foreman at Finsbury Park, was 
a member of the National Chrysanthemum Society’s 
Floral Committee, and was present when the certificate 
in question was given. He believed the plants to be 
identical. 
Mr. Frederick Gifford, foreman of Mr. Ware’s 
florists’ flower department, examined by Mr. Loehnis, 
gave evidence as to the terms upon which he obtained 
the plant from the Messrs. Heath, and stated that until 
the Aquarium show he did not know that anyone else 
had a similar sport. 
