124. CUTTING ASH-POLES. 



ueighboui-hood), it ai)pcared that the poles in question consisted of 

 shoots til-owing from old stools, which were seasonable and fit for 

 cutting about every 17 or 18 years, that by invariable custom they 

 belonged to the landlord in the absence of a special agreement to the 

 contrary; that, whilst Parsons held the farm, these poles had never 

 been in a fit state for cutting; that two tenants who had preceded 

 Parsons in the occupation of the farm had cut and sold them as crops, 

 and that Kendall had, Avhilst he occupied, paid the rates for the whole 

 farm, including the wood or spinney in which the poles grew. When 

 Parsons became the tenant, the spinney was valued as between him 

 and the outgoing tenant at £50 9s. Gd. : the valuation describing it is, 

 *' Twelve acres of spinney, some of them of three and some of four years' 

 growth;" but there was no evidence that it was valued from Parsons to 

 the defendant's father when he became the tenant (17 C. B. 2 GO). 



W/lles J. finally left three questions to the jury, the third being 

 whether the landlord or tenant was entitled to the poles. His lordship 

 told them that he thought ash, oak, and elm were jn-imd facie timber 

 trees ; that they might assume the character of a crop, and be cut by 

 the tenant, if the usage had for a series of years, and through a suc- 

 cession of tenancies, been to cut them from time to time, as such, and 

 allow them to grow up again from the old stumps ; and that if there 

 was a custom of the country for the landlord to be entitled to the poles, 

 though of that character, such custom would take away the right of the 

 tenant. And he left it to them to say what was the character of the 

 poles, and whether there was a custom for the landlord to have them, 

 and whether this case was within the custom. The jury found for the 

 plaintiff as to the poles, damages £74 3s. dil, saying that there is a 

 universal cmlom that such poles are not crops, but belong to the land- 

 lord, unless there is a special agreement. His lordshijD reserved leave 

 to the defendant to move to enter a verdict for him, if the Court should 

 be of opinion that notwithstanding the custom the defendant had a 

 riglit to the poles. The Court of Common Pleas held that it was im- 

 portant to consider on wliat terms Parsons had held the farm, and that 

 as this question was not left to the jury, there should be a new trial. 

 The case was, however, settled. And where a purchaser of a field 

 entered into possession under the contract, and filled up a pond and 

 stubbed up an osier bed, Knirjlit Bruce V.C. held that these acts did 

 not amount to a waiver of title, but that the purchaser would not be 

 allowed the usual reference for title, unless he paid the purchase-money, 

 and all the interest accrued due on it, into Court within three weeks 

 {Osborne v. Hurvcij). 



A ienani's rit/hl to dotards was fully discussed in Channon v. Patchy 



