Contemporary Agricultural Law. 143 



addition of water and refused to convict. The Court held that 

 in the absence of evidence in contradiction of the analyst's 

 certificate the Justices should not have used their own know- 

 ledge but should have convicted. 



Retail Dairy Co. yJ Clarke (1912, 2 K.B.,388 ; 81 L.J.K.B., 

 815) was a case of warranty in which it was held that a war- 

 ranty of the purity of milk will be available as a defence under 

 Section 20, Sub-section 1 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 

 1899, if a copy of it with written notice of the intention to rely 

 on it is put into the post within the seven days after service of 

 the summons mentioned in the section, although not received by 

 the purchaser to whom it is sent until a later date. In Thomas, 

 Lim., V. Houghton (1911, 2 K.B., 959 ; 81 L.K.J.B., 21) where 

 there was a continuing warranty of the purity of milk, it was 

 decided that the six calendar months limited by Section 11 of 

 the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1818, for laying an information 

 for giving a false warranty ran from the date of each delivery 

 and not from the date of the original warranty. In Jackling 

 V. Carter (10 L.G.R., 632) the warranty of purity was am- 

 biguous in its wording. It was as follows : " The said S. S. & 

 G. Dairies, Ltd., purchase all milk sold by them under a 

 warranty of its purity from the farmers, and agree to put the 

 same on rail thoroughly well cooled over a refrigerator, and 

 guarantee it as such up to the time of delivery at the above 

 address." This was held to be a warranty of purity of the 

 milk as delivered at the dealer's address, upon which he was 

 entitled to rely under Section 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs 

 Act, 1875, and not merely a guarantee that the milk should 

 arrive " thoroughly well cooled over a refrigerator." 



5. Small Holdings. A case under the Small Holdings and 

 Allotments Act, 1908, deserves notice having regard to the 

 activity now shown by County Councils in providing small 

 holdings under the Act. In Re Evans and Glamorganshire 

 County Council (10 L.G.R., 805) a County Council had pur- 

 chased land for the purposes of the Small Holdings and Allot- 

 ments Act, 1908, and the tenant of the land under his agreement 

 with the Council became entitled to " such compensation for 

 the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting which 

 the tenant may unavoidably incur upon and in connection with 

 the sale or removal of his household goods and his implements 

 of husbandry, produce, and farm stock on or used in con- 

 nection with the land as he would have been entitled to under 

 the Small Holdings Act, 1910, if his tenancy of the said farm 

 had l)een terminated by a notice to quit as in the said Act 

 stated." Questions arose as to the items for which he could 

 obtain compensation under the above-mentioned Act, which it 

 may be noted is, as regards the subject matter of compensation, 



