DIFFERENT TIMES OF QUITTING. 433 



times of enfri/ as aforesakr' ; and the rent was reserved half-yearly at 

 Michaelmas and Lady Day, It was held that a notice to quit delivered 

 half-a-year before Lady Day, but less than half-a-year before Candlemas, 

 was good, the taking being in substance from Lady Day, with a privi- 

 lege for the incoming tenant to enter on the arable land at Candlemas 

 for the sake of the ploughing, &c. Lord Elloilwrougli C.J. said : " The 

 case Doe dem. Daggett v. Snoivdon has decided that the notice to quit 

 shall refer to the substantial day of entry of the tenant, though he may 

 have before entered on the arable land for the benefit of ploughing and 

 preparing it, and that the incoming tenant may have the privilege of 

 entering upon it for the same purpose, antecedent to the time of notice." 



In Doe dem. Davenport v. Rhodes, a tenant held a farm, t/ie lands, 

 ivith file exception of a sufficient outlet of Voozy pasture, from the 2nd of 

 Februarg, and the house with such pas twe from the 1st of Hag, 1835, 

 then next, for one year, and afterwards from year to year, as long as 

 both parties should please. On Aug. 1st, 1842, a notice was served on 

 the defendants to quit the farm on the 2nd of Feb. then next, or at 

 such other time or times as their tenancy should expire next after the 

 expiration of half-a-year from the delivery of the notice. It was con- 

 tended for the defendants that this notice was not sufficient to entitle 

 the lessor of the plaintiff to recover the house, outluiiklings, and 

 outlet, as to which the term would not expire until the 1st of May 

 following. Williams J. reserved the point, and the plaintiff' had a 

 general verdict. The Court did not pronounce a definite opinion upon 

 the question, and the plaintiff was held entitled to a general verdict, 

 if he proved his title to recover any part of that for which he had 

 declared. 



In Doe dem. Kindersley v. Hughes, the actual period of the commence- 

 ment of the tenancy was not shown ; but it was proved to be the usage 

 of the estate that the tenants should enter upon the lands on the 2nd of 

 February, and upon the house and outbuildings on the 1st of May. On 

 the 16th of February, 1838, a notice to quit was served upon the defen- 

 dants by the agent of the trustees, " to quit and deliver up the farm, 

 lands, and premises which you hold under them at the end of your 

 jyresent year's holding thereof " ; and it was held that this was a good 

 notice to determine the tenancy in the spring of 1839, it not being 

 shown, on the part of the tenant, that the land was not the principal 

 subject of the holding. The defendants contended that the notice to 

 quit was insufficient on the face of it, inasmuch as it was to quit at the 

 end of the defendant's present year's holding, i.e., in May, 1838, for 

 which it was too late ; and that it could not operate to determine the 

 tenancy at the end of a subsequent year. 



