Contemporari/ Agricultural Law. 191 



rlml)ai'b, &o., and erection of buildings) execvited by him or his 

 predeceHSors in the same tenancy after the earliest day on which 

 if notice had been given immediately after January 1, 189G, the 

 tenancy might have been determined. 



Another case iinder the Agricultural Holdings Act is 

 Calhcart v. Chalmers (1911 A.C., 24(5 ; 80 L.J.P.C. 143), where 

 it was held in a Scottish case by the House of Lords that a 

 clause in a lease by which the tenant debarred himself from 

 claiming compensation for improvements by a claim made " later 

 than one month *prioi' to the determination of the tenancy" 

 was inconsistent with the provisions of Section 2, Sub- 

 section 2, of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (corresponding 

 with Section 6, Sub-section 2, of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 

 1908) under which a tenant is entitled to claim at any time 

 before the determination of his tenancy, and was therefore 

 void as being a contract depriving him of his right to claim 

 compensation. (See vSection 5 of the Agricultural Holdings 

 Act, 1908.) 



In M'Quater v. Fergusson (1911 S.C., 640), also a Scottish 

 case, a lease contained a provision by which the tenant was 

 bound to apply to the land a certain amount of farmyard 

 manure (25 tons of good farmyard dung) per acre, and so far 

 as he had not sufficient farmyard manure for the purpose to 

 make up the amount with artificial manure. On quitting his 

 holding the tenant claimed compensation for the unexhausted 

 value of artificial manure applied in terms of that provision. 

 The landlord contended that the tenant was not entitled to 

 claim compensation for artificial manure applied in accordance 

 with the lease, inasmuch as he had received a " l)ene6t " under 

 Section 1, Sub-section 2, of the Agricultm-al Holdings (Scotland) 

 Act, 1908 (corresponding with Section 1, Sub-section 2, of the 

 English Act), in consideration for that improvement, viz. : the 

 l)enefit of having to pay less rent under the lease in consequence 

 of the manuring obligation. It was held that such an implied 

 benefit was not a " benefit " in the sense of the section, and 

 that the tenant's claim was accordingly good, the Lord President 

 observing, " I think any benefit must be a benefit specially 

 mentioned and allowed," and " I think you are there going into 

 the region of speculation ; whereas, I think, the Sub-section 

 clearly applies not to a speculative question, but to the case 

 where a particular benefit is mentioned as having been given in 

 respect of a ])articular thing." In the same case it was held 

 that the costs of a case stated to the sheriff (in England the 

 county court judge) should be dealt with by him and not bj' 

 the arbitrator under the Second Schedule to the Act, rule 14. 



In Herron v. Martin (27 Times L.R., 431) the validity of a 

 notice to quit was questioned. By an agreement a farm was 



