310 PLOUGHING UP PABBUr WAEREN. 



r.nd tliondi some exceptions are pointed ont, yet with respect to the 

 conversion of meadow into arable, no doubt is raised, Init it is extremely 

 donbtful whether such an injunction would now be granted either in the 

 case of mustard seed or flax. 



It cannot Ic decided as a genei'al jjrojwsifion, without any exception, 

 that the conversion of ancioit meadow into arahle is to he treated as waste, 

 and hence the Court will not restrain an incumbent from ploughing up 

 meadow infected with moss and weeds for the purpose of laying it down 

 again in grass when properly cleaned {Duke of St. Athans v. Skijjwit//). 

 And qi'O're, whether a patron is in any cnse entitled to an injunction to 

 restrain the incumbent from ploughing up ancient meadows, as in that 

 case the course of husbandry cultivation must remain the same to all 

 time (//>.). In HosJfins v. Featherstone, where the Court had previously 

 interfered to stay the conversion of glebe meadow into pasture, the bill 

 was filed, not against the incumbent, but against the widow of an in- 

 cumbent who was doing the acts complained of during a vacancy. 

 Xeejlect to cidtivate the fjlele land in a husiandtiJce manner, is ?iot a dilapi- 

 dation for tchich an incum'bent can recover against the executors of a pre- 

 viovs incumlcnt, as no such contract to cultivate it can be implied 

 between him and his successor ; there must be something of demolition 

 to support an action for dilapidations {Bird v. Ralph). And pier Patte- 

 son J.: "The authorities show that such an action is maintainable, 

 where the buildings, hedges, and fences belonging to the benefice are 

 left in a state of decay, or where tliere has been a felling of timl.)cr, 

 otherwise than for repairs or fuel " (il\). 



To hrecik up a ralhit warren for potato grounds, unless it be a warren 

 by charter or prescription, is not waste at common law, and the Court 

 will grant no injunction {Lurling v. Conn). Here the warren was 

 demised simply as land, l)ut the i^Iaster of the Rolls intimated that if a 

 lease was made of a rabbit warren as a rabbit warren, the tenant might 

 ])crhaps be considered as i>recluded from ploughing it up. An injunc- 

 tion was granted to resti'ain tenants from year to ycnr under notice to 

 quit, as in the case of a lessee for a longer term, from cutting and doing 

 damage to hedge-rows, and from removing the crops, manui-e, &c., ex- 

 cept according to the custom of the country {Onslow v. Fames), and sec 

 Ptdtoney v. Shelton, and Lathropp v. Marsh. 



In Rayner v. Stone a demurrer to a hill hg a landlord for a specific 

 performance of covenants contained in a lease which had expired, to re- 

 pair hedges and mansion-house, to account foi- loppings, toppings, and 

 hedges which the defendant had cut on tlic premises, or to account 

 for the fodder or dung which he had removed, or to set up landmarks, 

 ptones and fences, was allowed ; common covenants in husbandry not 



