226 ROWLEY GllEEN. 



with the consent of the homage, as against copy- 

 holders, it could not be valid as against a person who 

 had ceased to be a copyholder, but who still retained 

 his rights of common. 



The case was tried before Mr. Justice Day and a 

 special Jury, in Middlesex, on October 27th, 1892. 

 The Judge held that the defendant was bound by the 

 custom of the Manor, after the enfranchisement equally 

 as before, when he was a copyholder ; and as the Rolls 

 of the Manor showed that on several previous occasions 

 from 1700 the earliest date from which they existed 

 small portions of the waste had been inclosed with 

 the consent of the homage, he directed a verdict for 

 the lord. The case was subsequently argued in the 

 Court of Appeal, which upheld the ruling of Mr. 

 Justice Day. The defendant was advised that there 

 was every prospect of success, if an appeal were made 

 to the House of Lords, on the two points : first, that 

 such a custom cannot be valid against others than 

 copyhold tenants of the Manor; and, secondly, that 

 the custom alleged that the Lord of the Manor, with 

 the consent of his own nominees on the homage, might 

 inclose was unreasonable, and one that could not be 

 sustained at law. 



The question would have been one of the utmost 

 importance, for there are many Manors where customs 

 of this kind are alleged to exist, and it would be a most 

 serious matter if their lords could maintain their right 

 to inclose the waste, with the consent of a homage nomin- 

 ated by themselves, and without leaving a sufficiency 



