Tfie Agricultural Holdings (^England) Act, 1875. 
175 
be a slight anomaly in the accompanying provision for finding 
the compensation due to the tenant in the event of such a 
severance of his holding as is here contemplated. Having 
regard, no doubt, to the smallness of the amount at issue, the 
Act wisely declares that the reduction of rental under heads 
(6) and (c), which is to be ascertained by agreement or settled 
by reference, as in the case of compensation, shall not be sub- 
ject to appeal to the County Court (§ 52, sub-sect. 2). If, 
however, the tenant has a claim for unexhausted improvements 
upon the same bit of land, and the amount claimed is over 50/., 
there is nothing to prevent him from carrying the claim not 
only into the County Court, but before the High Court of 
Justice, upon any question of law (sub-sect. 1). 
FiXTUKES. 
As early as the reign of Edward II. we find the rule laid 
i down in the Year Books (in 1324) that where a lessee or yearly 
tenant, having annexed anything to the freehold, afterwards 
> takes it away, it is waste. The exception in favour of trade- 
fixtures is first recorded as being raised in 1369, but is not 
' expressly laid down till 1505. Two hundred years later. Lord 
Holt, by his decision in Poole's case, placed the privilege of 
removing trade-fixtures beyond all question. Attempts were 
soon made to extend to agriculture the exceptions grafted 
upon the rule ; and at one time there seemed to be fair pro- 
spect that, by force of judicial decision, farmers would re- 
ceive the same privileges as had been obtained by persons in 
trade. In 1694 there is recorded a case tried at Hereford before 
Lord Chief Justice Treby (Culling v. Tufnell), in which a barn 
erected by a tenant upon pattens and blocks of timber, lying on, 
but not let into, the land, was held to be removable by the 
tenant ; but the Judge founded his decision on the custom of 
the country in favour of the tenant, with reference to which it 
might be presumed that he and his landlord had contracted. 
In 1799, in the case of Dean v. Allalley, the tenant had erected 
two sheds, called Dutch barns, and had removed them during 
his term. He was sued on his covenant, by which he under- 
I took to leave in repair all buildings which then were or 
should be erected on the premises during the term, and Lord 
Kenyon held that these barns were not included in this descrip- 
tion. These barns " had a foundation of brick in the ground, 
and uprights fixed in and rising from the brickwork and sup- 
porting the roof, which was composed of tiles, and the sides 
open ;" and Lord Kenyon justified his decision by the remark 
that the law would make the most favourable construction for 
i 
