98 Contemporary Agricultural Law. 



agricultural value of the land. These two cases are now under 

 appeal. 



In Southend-ofi-Sea Estates Gomjjany v. Inland Revenue 

 Commissioners (83 L.J.K.B., 611 ; 1914, 1 K.B., .515) the 

 question raised was as to the liability of land in fact used as 

 agricultural land for undeveloped land duty which, under 

 Section 17, Sub-section 1 of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, 

 is not to be charged in respect of any land of which the site 

 value does not exceed 501. per acre. The land in question was 

 admittedly undeveloped land of more than 50/. per acre 

 in value, but it was held and farmed as agricultural land by 

 tenants under a lease for seven years which had not expired 

 when the Act came into operation. The lease contained a power 

 to the lessors at any time to enter upon and resume possession 

 of certain parts of the land for building or other purposes upon 

 giving the lessee one month's notice. Section 17, Sub-section 

 5 of the Act provides that when agricultural land is at the 

 passing of the Act held under a tenancy originally created by a 

 lease or agreement made before April 30, 1909, undeveloped 

 land duty shall not be charged on the site value of the land 

 during the original term of that lease or agreement while the 

 tenancy continues thereunder, but that where the landlord has 

 power to determine the tenancy of the whole or any part of 

 the land the tenancy of the land or that part of the land shall 

 not be deemed to continue after the earliest date after the 

 commencement of the Act at which it is possible to determine 

 the tenancy. It was contended that as there was power to 

 resume possession for building and other purposes the land 

 became liable to undeveloped land duty before the determin- 

 ation of the lease by virtue of the clause at the end of Section 

 17, Sub-section 5. It was held, however, that the land was not 

 liable to undeveloped land duty before the determination of 

 the lease, as the right to resume possession never arose under 

 the power which was not exercisable except in an event which 

 had never happened, namely, the desire and intention to take 

 possession of the land for building or some other purpose than 

 the agricultural purpose of the lease. This decision has since 

 been affirmed in the House of Lords (see 31 Times L.R., 30). 



8. Miscellaneous. In London Cou)ity Council v. Lee 

 (83 L.J.K.B., 1373 ; 1914, 3 K.B., 255), Caleb Lee, a farmer 

 and market gardener, owned a motor traction engine, which 

 he employed to carry produce from his farm at Swanley to the 

 Borough Market in London. Under the Locomotives Act, 1898 

 (61. and 62 Vict., c. 29), Section 9, Sub-section 1, every loco- 

 motive must be licensed by a County Council, "provided that 

 this enactment shall not apply to an agricultural locomotive," 

 which expression is defined in Section 17 as including " any 



