1 May, 1898.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 355 
orchid was purchased for 20 guineas, the purchaser, no doubt, being 
delighted at being the only possessor of such a rare orchid. He cherished this 
treasure for two years, and at the end of that time, instead of a white, it borea 
purple blossom. The seller was forthwith sued for damages for “false warranty.” 
These damages were set down at £50. Much more might have been claimed ; 
‘but the small amount was merely to enable the plaintiff to bring the action within 
the jurisdiction of the county court. There was no dispute as to the facts—the 
so-called unique orchid was not what it was guaranteed to be. The question was 
whether the plaintiff could claim for more than the difference between the 
price he paid (20 guineas) and the actual value of the orchid (about 10s., the 
plant not being an“ alba”), or whether he could claim the difference between 
the lower price (10s., as for an ordinary orchid) and the value of the plant at 
the date when it flowered, supposing it really to have been the rare plant 
described in the defendant’s catalogue. The latter paid into court a sum of . 
money for damages on the first of these suppositions, with something added 
for the care and labour bestowed on the plant during two years by the 
purchaser. The case had already been decided in the lower court, and this 
was an appeal from the decision of that court. The decision had been that the 
first supposition was the proper basis for estimating the damages on the 
warranty given. Hence the appeal, the plaintiff alleging that damages on the 
warranty should have been paid on the higher scale—viz., that on which he 
had claimed. The defendant took the opposite view naturally. As such a 
case was entirely novel, no precedents were quoted, and consequently much 
learned argument ensued. ‘he case is deemed to be one of great importance, 
because of the novel principle on warranty which it introduces, and because of 
the minimum area of trading interests which may be affected by it. The appeal 
court gave judgment that damages should have been assessed on the higher scale. 
THE HOT WATER TREATMENT OF SEED WHEAT. 
To disinfect seed wheat by the hot water method, a furnace or other heating 
apparatus must be provided, having capacity for two, at least, considerable 
boilers, containing water at 120 degrees and 135 degrees respectively. A 
smaller vessel containing boiling water, and an abundant supply of cold water 
should be within easy reach. ‘he seed to be operated upon may be in a loose 
gunny sack, or preferably a vessel made of fine gauze, or similar material, that 
will permit the free movement of the hot water among the seeds. Not 
unlikely, a well-perforated kerosine tin, where small quantities of seed are 
treated, would be found to answer the purpose excellently. The vessel, which 
should never be full of grain, should be plunged into the first boiler containing 
water at 120 degrees, in which the seed basket or sack should be moved about 
for a minute or two, until the grain has all been warmed by contact with the 
water. Then plunge the seed basket into the boiler containing hot water at 
135 degrees. The seed should remain in the second boiler ten minutes, during 
which the grain should be moved about and agitated in such a manner as to 
ensure the complete contact of every grain with the scalding water. If 
the temperature of the water should fall during this process, it must be 
maintained at not lower than 132 degrees by additions of boiling water, At the 
expiration of the ten minutes’ submergence in the hot bath, the seed should be 
plunged into cold water and then spread out to dry, after which it is ready for 
sowing. This plan has the merit of cheapness, and it may be applied at times 
and places where bluestone or other chemicals are not available. 
But, besides these advantages, an increased yield is obtained from seed 
thus treated—that is, considerably greater than would ordinarily be obtained by 
replacing the smutted ears by sound ones. To put it in another way, it has 
been shown by Jensen and others “ that the per cent. of heads destroyed by smut 
does not represent the (total) amount that will be recovered in the seed.” 
