94 Contemporary Agricultural Laic. 



Holdings Act, 1908, which refers all such questions to the 

 determination of a single arbitrator. The claim was by the 

 landlord for breach of a covenant to deliver up the premises 

 "in as good and tenan table repair as they now are,' and it was 

 referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award in 

 favour of the landlord. The tenant alleged that the arbitrator 

 had refused to admit evidence tendered by him as to the 

 condition of the farm at the commencement of the tenancy 

 which he contended to be material, and he applied to the 

 County Court under Schedule II., Clause 13 of the Act to set 

 aside the award on the ground that the arbitrator had miscon- 

 ducted himself, the misconduct alleged being his refusal to 

 admit this evidence. The County Court Judge dismissed the 

 application, holding that the refusal to admit evidence did not 

 amount to misconduct entitling him to set aside the award. 

 The tenant appealed to the Divisional Court, and it was objected 

 that no appeal lay from the County Court Judge's decision, as 

 Section 43 of the Act says, " An order of the County Court 

 . . . under this Act shall not be quashed for want of form or 

 be removed by certiorari or otherwise into any superior Court." 

 It was held that that section had no application, as to remove 

 an order from the County Court in order to quash it was a 

 different thing from appealing against it. The Judge was 

 acting in his ordinary jurisdiction as County Court Judge, and 

 an appeal lay from his decision under Section 120 of the 

 County Courts Act, 1888. On the main question raised it was 

 held that refusal of an arbitrator to admit material evidence 

 on the question at issue is evidence of misconduct on his part, 

 entitling the County Court to set aside the award. 



Mmj V. Mills (30 Times L.R., 287) shows the limits of the 

 jurisdiction of an arbitrator in a dispute between landlord and 

 tenant under a lease which referred differences arising during 

 the term to arbitration. Certain differences arose which the 

 arbitrator decided arose during the tenancy, and he made a 

 finding in the plaintiff's favour. The defendant took no part 

 in the arbitration, as he contended that the dispute did not 

 arise during the tenancy. It was held that the arbitrator was 

 not authorised by the submission to arbitration to decide the 

 preliminary question whether the dispute arose during the 

 tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant or not, and the 

 award was therefore set aside. 



Ashburton (Lord) v. Norton (50 L.J.N.C, IG : lOlf), W.N.S.) 

 illustrates the risk which a tenant may run who pays his rent in 

 advance under discount by an arrangement with his landlord. 

 A judgment for a large amount had been recovered against the 

 landlord, and writs of execution had been issued and registered 

 in respect of his land before the payment took place. It was 



I 



