REFUSAL OF ENTRANCE TO NEW TENANTT. 423 



were directed by his lordsliip to find for the phiintiff" on a count for 

 money paid {Graclmdl v. Davij). 



The question as to when a lessor can he said to deni/ an entrance on to 

 his farm to the tiew tenant was discussed in Ilaiclres v. Ortoti. The 

 plaintiff in the autumn of 1832 entered upon 98 acres of the arable 

 land, and sowed them with wheat, and on April 6th, 1833, he went to 

 the farm, which still continued in the defendant's occupation, and 

 stated that he was come to take possession accordino^ to the lease. 

 Some further conversation followed, and according to the plaintifF, he at 

 that time demanded possession of the premises not yet given up to him, 

 and the defendant refused it. The plaintiff never obtained possession. 

 He ceased to occupy the 98 acres, and the defendant reaped the wheat. 

 Lord Ahinger C.B. considered that the plaintifi" had not clearly shown 

 any actual demand and refusal of possession, and that there ought to 

 be a nonsuit. The plaintiflF's counsel contended that there was a con- 

 structive eviction, as the plaintiff must be taken (and was in effect ad- 

 mitted by the pleadings) to have entered on the whole of the premises 

 when he entered on the 98 acres, and the defendant on April 6th kept 

 him out of the farm. His lordship then left it to the jury whether or 

 not the plaintiff had gone to the farm on April 6th, with a hand fide 

 intent to take possession, and whether the defendant had seriously ex- 

 pressed and shown by his conduct an intention that he should not have 

 it. The jury found for the defendant, and the Court refused a new 

 trial. 



Doe dem. Marrpus of Hertford v. Hunt was the case of a tenant 

 refusing to show his farm. He had required that his rent might be 

 ' reduced from £520 to £400 ; the landlord refused, and he gave a 

 notice to quit at Michaelmas, 1834. It was afterwards agreed that he 

 should continue to hold on for a year at a reduced rent, the notice con- 

 tinuing in force until Michaelmas, 1835. Before that time arrived he 

 made an offer of £420, and received an answer from the plaintiff's 

 agent stating that " The Marquis of Hertford has directed me to 

 inform you, that he could only consent to accept your ofier of £420 

 for the farm, for the year from Michaelmas next to Michaelmas, 1836, 

 subject to the existing covenants, ^rrovided I could not find a tenant 

 for it at the rent it appeared to me to be worth hy the \st of August; and 

 subject as well to the express understanding that the notice you had 

 given to quit your farm at Michaelmas next should be admitted between 

 you not to be withdrawn, but to be carried over to Michaelmas, 1836. 

 The Marquis also directed me to advertise your farm to be let, in the 

 Ipswich paper, and I shall send the advertisement for insertion in the 

 next paper." 



