192 Coiiti'nipoi'arij Agrlrtdtural Laic. 



let tu the defeiidaiits tor a period u£ three years commencing 

 March 25, 1907, and so on from year to year until the tenancy 

 should be determined by either party giving to the other one 

 year's notice in writing. On March 21, 1910, the landlords 

 gave the defendants a notice to quit on March 25, 1911, and it 

 was held that this notice was good notwithstanding that it was 

 given before the expiration of the period of three vears certain. 

 In West V. Gwynne (1911, 2 Ch., 1 ; 80 L.J.Ck, 578) it was 

 held that Section 3 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property 

 Act, 1892, applies to all leases whether executeil before or after 

 the commencement of the Act, and in the absence of any 

 express provision to the contrary engrafts upon every covenant 

 in any such lease against assignment or underletting by the 

 tenant without the lessor's consent a proviso that no money 

 shall be payable in respect of such consent. If a lessor refuses 

 to give a consent except upon payment the lessee is relieved 

 from obtaining his consent and can make a valid assignment 

 'ur underlease without it. He is also entitled to bring an action 

 for a declaration to that effect. 



4. Game. In Pratt v. Martin (1911, 2 K.B., 90 ; 80 

 L.J.K.B., 711) it was held that the words " entering or being" 

 upon land in ''search or pursuit of game" in Section 30 of the 

 Game Act, 1831, mean entering or being on such land personally, 

 and a person who sends his dog on to land in search or pursuit 

 of game, and shoots game put up by the dog, cannot be convicted 

 under that section of trespassijig in pursuit of game. 



5. Produce. In Wallis v. Pratt (1911, A.C., 394 ; 80 

 L.J.K.B., 1058) the decision in the same case of the Court of 

 Appeal (noted at page 134 of Vol, 71 of this Journal) was reversed. 

 The appellants had purchased by sample from the respondents 

 seed which was described as "common English sainfoin," and 

 said to have been grown by Walker, of Alvescot. The appellants 

 re-sold a loortion of the seed as common English sainfoin, but 

 when it came up it was discovered to be giant sainfoin which 

 was inferior in quality to the English, lasting only about three 

 instead of six, seven, or eight years. The appellants, on the 

 mistake being discovered, paid the purchasers from them the 

 difference between the value of the seed sown and that of 

 common English sainfoin. The sold note from the respondents 

 to the appellants contained a condition " Sellers give no war- 

 ranty express or implied, as to growth, description, or any other 

 matters." The House of Lords hekl that the appellants were 

 entitled to l^e repaid by the respondents the amount of the 

 difference in value, notwithstanding the clause as to no 

 warranty, there having been a breach of an implied condition 

 that the goods should correspond with the description of 

 common English sainfoin, which the purchaser was entitled. 



