RESERVATION OF PENALTIES. 313 



rent or sum of £100," " to be paid by two equal half-yearly days of 

 payment in the year," " and also yielding andpaijimj unto " the lessor on 

 the said days, "■ a farilter i/oarhj rent or sum according to the rate of " 

 £20 an acre, for converting grazing land into tillage without licence, 

 and also, *' yiplding and iKUjing over and above the said rent hereinbefore 

 reserved, according to the rate of £20 per acre," " for sowing any rape, 

 woad, or potatoes, or above half an acre at one time of flax or hemp, or 

 from which he or they shall have, get, or take more than three crops of 

 corn or grain, in any one course of tillage, or from which shall be taken 

 a second or other crop of wheat, without making a clean summer 

 fallow," &c. Four breaches were assigned, and the defendants con- 

 tended that it was the intention of the parties, that on the specified 

 acts or defaults taking place, a penal sum should be paid, not an 

 additional rent continuing to the end of the term. The Court, how- 

 ever, held that the intention of the parties undoubtedly was that each 

 of these sums should become i)a\jable continuaHij as additional rent, if the 

 act or default upon which they arose was once committed, and that the 

 accidental omission of the term " further rent '' in one of the clauses, 

 while " yielding and paying " ran throughout, left enough to show the 

 necessary construction. And per Lord Ellenborough, C.J. : " In the 

 case of a covenant in a lease not to plough ancient meadow or the like, 

 followed by a proviso that in case the same should be ploughed by the 

 tenant thereof he should pay a certain increased rent for the same, it 

 would certainly be in the option of the lessor to declare as for a breach 

 of covenant not to plough, or he may declare at once for a breach of 

 covenant in not paying the stipulated satisfaction for such ploughing " 

 {Clarke v. Gray). And see Birch \. Stej)]ienson ; IIouwll v. Richards; 

 and Denton v. Riclnnvnd. 



In Farrant v. Otmius, which was a case of covenant by lessor against 

 lessee one/ tease reserriny an increased yearly rent of £50 for every acre of 

 certain la/ids converted into tillage, Abbott C.J. said, " If the argument 

 that the Court ought not to disturb such a verdict, bacause it is con- 

 sistent with justice, were to prevail, it would encourage jurors to 

 '^.ommit a breach of duty, by finding verdicts contrary to law, and 

 would enable them to set aside the contracts of mankind. There cer- 

 tainly is nothing unreasonable in a landlord stipulating that particular 

 lands shall not be converted into tillage at all, and that in case that be 

 done a large sum shall be paid by way of stipulated damages. In this 

 case there is an express contract for stipulated damages, and the jury 

 have given a verdict for arbitrary damages." The increased rent to 

 which the plaintiff was entitled, for the land converted into tillao-e, 

 was £1,550 ; whereas the jury, contrary to the direction of Richards 



