314 PENALTY FOR UNDER-LETTING. 



C.B., vrho told llicm to find for that sum and half a year's rent for the 

 land not laid down for grass, returned their verdict for £1,100; and 

 when I'cquested to reconsider it, and specify how much was for repairs, 

 (according to the covenants of the lease), and how much for the land, 

 they stated tliat they found £500 for the repairs, and £600 for the in- 

 jury done to the land. The rule for a new trial was made absolute, on 

 the ground tliat they were bound to give the increased rent. At the 

 following assizes, Ahlott C.J. refused to receive evidence that the actual 

 damage to the land was less than the sum claimed as increased rent; 

 and the plaintiff" recovered the increased rent. 



The addiiionaJ rcntv}?i.?,d.d.\mQd.m GreensladeY. T(q)s(oifimdcv peculiar 

 circumstances. There the lease contained a stipulation that for every 

 acre, and so in proportion for a less quantity of the land, which the 

 lessee should suffer to be occiq)ie(l by any other person, without the con- 

 sent of the landlord, an additional rent should be paid. The tenant 

 undertook to use, occupy, dross, and manure the land according to the 

 custom of the country ; and /fithouf the consent of the tandlord, suffered 

 other persons to use stnatt portions of the tan d for six months at a time, for 

 the purpose of raising a potato crop. It was proved to be the custom of 

 Somersetshire for the farmers to pursue tliat course, and after the potatoes 

 were taken out, and the land delivered up in October, wheat was sown. 

 The Court considered Lord Ettenljoroucjh's decision in Doe dem, Pitt v. 

 Laming to be unsatisfactory, and held that the landlord was held entitled 

 to the additional rent, this being an occupation of land "/>// any other 

 person.'' And jwr Parle B, : " 8uch an occupation as this for 12 

 months would have conferred a settlement, and the party in occupa- 

 tion would be the only person entitled to maintain trespass for an in- 

 jury done to the possession." 



A covenant in a farming lease not to sow any of the lands demised 

 " with wheat more than once in four years, nor with more fJian two crops 

 of any kind of grain whatsoever, during the same period of four years," 

 was held to apply to any four years of the term, however taken, and not 

 to each successive four years from the commencement (Fleeming v. Snook). 

 And in Shrewsbury (Earl of) v. Goidd, where a lessee covenanted that he 

 wonld '■^ at all times and seasons of burniny time'" supply the lessor and 

 his Staffordshire tenants wdtli lime at a stiimlated price for the im- 

 provement of their lands and repair of their houses ; it was held that 

 this was an implied covenant also that he would l)U]'n lime at all such 

 seasons, and that it was not a good defence to plead that there was 

 no lime burned on the premises, out of which the lessor could be 

 supplied. 



In Brown v. Crump, a declaration which stated that in consideration 



