DISTEAIN" OF GROWING CROPS. 291 



section 7 of the statute o^ Anne, the continuance of possession may be 

 either tortious or otherwise. In Nuttall v. Staunton it was by permis- 

 sion, and in Beavan v. Delahaij possession was continued under a custom. 

 But to make the statute applicable there must be a keeping as the 

 party's own, to the exclusion of other people. Ti]at fact is wanting 

 here." In this case a cow and some pigs, of the Talue of £17 1G5., 

 were taken as a distress for rent due from the plaintiff for a farm and 

 buildings. He had received notice to quit on May 13, 1835, when his 

 time of holding expired. The distress was put in May 22, and between 

 those periods the plaintiff, Avho still remained, was asked by the incom- 

 ing tenant, whose term had commenced, when he meant to leave. He 

 said he did not know ; but went away before the distress, leaving the 

 above animals on the farm. He did not ask permission to do so, nor 

 did he on leaving state his intentions. The new tenant entered, but 

 did not get complete possession till May 22. On that day, and before 

 the distress was put in, he had possession of the whole farm, unless 

 there was a continued possession by the plaintiff. A verdict was 

 given for the defendant ; but the Court, who solely decided the point 

 whether the distress made after the expiration of the term was justified by 

 statute 8 Anne, c. 14, ss. 6 & 7, ordered one to be entered for the plaintiff. 



In the case of PoUit v. Forrest the Exchequer Chamber decided that 

 a lessor cannot distrain under an agreement not under seal which gives 

 him power to recover penalties by distress as for rent in arrear, thus 

 reversing the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. 



It was decided in the Exchequer Chamber, reversing the decision 

 of the Court of King's Bench, that growing crops cannot he taken under 

 the power to distrain for the arrears of an annuitg {Milter v. Green). 



But in Joltnson v. Faulkner the Court of Queen's Bench held that 

 hay, corn, and straw, loose or in the stacJv, or in trusses, may be dis- 

 trained for arrears hy the grantee of a rent-charge, under 2 Witt. & Mary, 

 sess. 1, c. 5, s. 3, and stat. 4 Geo. II. c. 28, s. 5. Lord Denman C.J. said : 

 "It was contended that this statute did not extend to distresses for 

 such rents as that in question, but only to distresses for rent service 

 properly so called ; and Mitter v. Green was cited as an authority in 

 favour of the plaintiff. In that case groiving crops had been distrained 

 for arrears of an annuity, granted by a deed, containing a power to 

 distrain for arrears of the annuity, and to dispose of the distress in all 

 respects as distresses for rents reserved on leases for years might be 

 disposed of; and it was held that though the powers given by statute 2 

 Will & Mary, sess. 1, c. 5, would extend to such a case, the grantee of 

 the annuity could not avail himself of the subsequent statute of 1 1 Geo. 

 II. c. 19, introducing a new suhjecl of distress — the growing crops. 



u 2 



