Contemporary Agricultural Laic. 95 



held by the Court of Appeal reversing the judgment of Mr. 

 Justice Sargant that the arrangement between the landlord and 

 tenant under these circumstances was not binding as against 

 the judgment creditor, and that the tenant had therefore not 

 obtained a good discharge for his rent, and must pay it over 

 again to the receiver appointed at the instance of the judgment 

 creditor. 



PuUen-Burry v. Lancing College ('^ L.J.C.C. Rep., 54) was 

 a curious market gai'deuing case decided by a County Court 

 judge. He held that under a covenant by the landlord to pay 

 the tenants at the end of the term according to a valuation for 

 all fruit trees '"and other ci'ops then growing" on the holding, 

 the landlord was liable to pay for a large number of bulbs of 

 very considerable value planted by the tenant. The case is 

 now under appeal. 



4. Produce. Marcus v. Crook (83 L.J.K.B., 1376 ; 11U4, 

 3 K.B., 173) was a case of warranty of the purity of milk. 

 The appellant, a dairyman, was charged with selling milk 

 adulterated with 5 per cent, of added water. He set up as a 

 defence, under the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, Section 25, that 

 he had purchased the same under a written warranty of purity. 

 Section 20 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, provides 

 that a warranty shall not be a defence under the Sale of Food 

 and Drugs Act unless the defendant has within seven days 

 after service of the summons sent to the purchaser a copy of 

 the warranty with a written notice that he intends to rely on 

 it, and has also sent a like notice of his intention to the person 

 giving the warranty. It was held that the requirement of 

 seven days did not apply to the notice to be sent to the person 

 giving the warranty. It was sufficient if at the time when the 

 Court had to decide whether a warranty was available to the 

 defendant as a defence notice had been given by the defendant 

 to the person giving the warranty of his intention to rely on 

 it as a defence. 



5. Fertilisers aJid Feeding Stnffs. Worceste/shire Coiniti/ 

 Counril V. Notley Brothers (83 L.J.K.B., 1750 ; 1913, 3 K.B'., 

 330) is an important case under the Fertilisers and Feeding 

 Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), which provides by Section 1, 

 Sub-section 2 that every person who sells for use as food for 

 cattle or poultry any article which has been artificially prepared 

 otherwise than by being mixed, broken, ground or chopped, 

 shall give to the purchaser an invoice stating what are the 

 respective percentages (if any) of oil and albuminoids in the 

 article. The respondents sold for use as food for cattle or 

 poultry 3^ lb. of " sharps " which are well known as an offal of 

 wheat being the part remaining after the fiour and bran, from 

 each of which it differs in chemical composition, have been 



