ol(j ALLOWANCE FOR LASTING IMPllOVEMENTS. 



bourhood. The Court held tliat the plnintifV had tied liimself np to 

 tlie precise custom as alleged in the declaration, and having ftiiled to 

 prove it was not entitled to recover. 



AVhere the declaration, as in Hartley v. Burlcdl, charged tlie defendant, 

 as tenant to the plaintiff, with carrtjinij atrai/ in an vnfcnantahU manner, 

 and contrary to the custom of the country, several loads of Itay off the farm 

 without hrinyiny back and spendiny on the 2)remises an equal number of 

 loads of duny, the plea that there was not any such custom of the 

 country (which the plaintiff contended was bad as amounting to the 

 general issue) was held to be good. There was a covenant in Bichards 

 V. JJIack to spend the green crops on tlie lands, or to bring back for every 

 such ton of green crop sold off, a ton of good stable manure within 

 three mouths. The plaintiflF set out the first part only, and assigned 

 for breach that the defendant carried away fourteen acres of turnips 

 without converting the same into manure and spreading it on the 

 demised premises. It was objected that there was a material variance 

 between the covenant in the declaration and that contained in the 

 lease, and the Court considered that the judge was right in refusing to 

 amend, and that the covenant being an alternative one, the plaintiff 

 should have negatived the bringing back, within the time limited, an 

 equivalent in manure. 



A lessee under a lease void for his own fraud, is not en I if led to alluwances 

 for tastiny improrements {Pierre v. Wehh). But where, as in Atlorney- 

 General v. Preiyman, an order was made in a suit that tlie master of a 

 charity should be at liberty to let a farm to the old tenant for twenty- 

 one years at a rent of £800 a-year, and the lease had been approved of ; 

 but before it had been executed by the master, an offer was made of an 

 increased rent of £220, the tenant in tlie meanwhile having laid out 

 £2,925 12s. \d. in artificial manures and improvements on the faith of 

 such future lease ; the Master of the liolls held that the offer of such 

 an increase of rent as £220 could not be refused (supported as it was 

 by the valuation of four land-agents and surveyors), but that the old 

 tenant was entitled to be saved harmless, and have an allowance for his 

 outlay, if he did not make fresh proposals for a lease on the same terms. 

 In Whitalier v. Barler a bargain was made between the defendant and 

 the jilaintiff that the latter should take the farm for fourteen years, and 

 pay £'J5 at coming in for tillages, and receive compensation at qidttiny 

 acrordiny to a fresh valuation, from an inc.ominy tenant, for the tillayes 

 and impn'ovemenls he miyht leave on the farm. On account of some dis- 

 pute, tlie tenant, without making any new bargain as to the tillages 

 and iniitrovements, said he would quit at the end of the year, and the 

 landlord said he might, and the Court considered that as such quitting 



