144 Contemporary Agricultural Law. 



identical in terms with that part of Section 11 of the Agri- 

 cultural Holdings Act, 1908, which deals with the compensation 

 for disturbance which may be obtained by a tenant whose 

 tenancy has been terminated " without good and sufficient 

 cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate manage- 

 ment." It was held that the compensation payable to the 

 tenant included compensation in respect of loss sustained by 

 him by selling the stock by public auction instead of upon a 

 valuation, and in respect of the cost of supplying refreshments to 

 those attending the auction, which the umpire had found was 

 customary and desirable at agricultural auction sales. A fee 

 paid by the tenant for settling an agreement between himself 

 and the County Council was disallowed, and also a fee paid by 

 him for valuing the stock before the sale, but it was suggested 

 that the last-mentioned fee might be allowed on the reference 

 to arbitration of the tenant's claim as part of the costs of 

 reference. 



6. Miscellaneous. Under this head some cases should be 

 noted. 



In Martin v. Gr^eat Eastern Railivay (1912, 2 K.B., 406 ; 

 81 L.J.K.B., 825) the plaintiff claimed to recover under the 

 Railway Fires Act, 1905, for damage caused to agricultural 

 land and crops belonging to him at Trumpington in the county 

 of Cambridge by fire arising from sparks or cinders emitted 

 from locomotive engines used on the defendants' railway 

 adjoining his land. His action failed because he did not 

 comply with the requirements of Section 3 of the Act by 

 giving notice and particulars of damage in writing to the 

 railway company within seven days of the occurrence as to 

 the notice of claim, and within fourteen days as to the par- 

 ticulars of damage. He had, in fact, sent notices of the 

 occurrence to the railway company, but had not stated the 

 amount of damage claimed in money within the prescribed 

 time. Mr. Justice Channell, before whom the case came, held 

 that the notice was a condition precedent to the Act applying, 

 and must contain a statement of the amoimt claimed in respect 

 of damage. 



Rex V. Preston Rural Council (10 L.G.R., 238 ; 106 L.T. 

 37) was a case where bye-laws of a District Council provided 

 that any person erecting a new " domestic building " should 

 provide in the rear of it an open space. The Council refused 

 their approval of plans of a farmhouse and barn erected as one 

 building, because they considered the barn ought to be erected 

 separately from the dwelling-house so as to allow air space 

 between them. It was held that they were wrong in doing so 

 as the farmhouse and barn were one " domestic building " and 

 the plan showed the necessary air space on every side, 



