The Agricultural Holdings Act. 
205 
volves a decision on some legal principle, or, what is more likely, 
requires the interpretation of an expression in some new Act of 
Parliament relating to agriculture. The case to which this Note 
refers comes within the last class. 
Mr. Paul held a farm of some 1,223 acres in Dorsetshire under 
Lord Portarlington, as tenant from year to year, and, in accordance 
with the terms of the agreement under which he held his farm, he 
gave his landlord notice to determine his tenancy on Old Michaelmas- 
day (Oct. 11), 1888. Now, there exists a custom in that part of 
Dorsetshire in which this farm is situated which entitles a tenant 
who gives up his farm at Old Michaelmas to hold over some of 
the land till the 11th of the following February, and this custom 
was incorporated into the agreement under which Mr. Paul held 
his farm. On October 11, 1888, Mr. Paul quitted and gave up pos- 
session of about 1,000 acres, but continued, in accordance with the 
custom, to hold over some 200 acres of the land (about 120 acres 
pasture and 80 arable), till February 11, 1889, and certain buildings 
and premises till a later date. 
On December 10, 1888— that is, two months before February 11, 
1889 — Mr. Paul gave his landlord notice, under the seventh section 
of the Agricultural Holdings Act, of his intention to claim com- 
pensation at the expiration of his occupancy of the farm, in respect 
of the use and consumption thereon of cake and other purchased 
feeding-stuffs and artificial manures, to the amount of about 2,200/., 
and that he estimated a further expenditure of about 200/. on cake 
and other feeding-stuff's from that date to February 11 then next, 
when he should quit the portion of the land which he continued to 
hold over. And at the same time he appointed a referee to act for 
him. When Lord Portarlington received this notice, he declined to 
entertain it, on the ground that it ought to have been given two 
months before the determination of the tenancy by Mr. Paul on 
October 11, 1888, and that as it was not given within that time, it 
was of no effect. 
Putting aside the technical form in which the case was brought 
on, as bej» lg of no interest or use to agriculturists, the question which 
the Courts — the Dorsetshire County Court in the first instance, and 
ultimately the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court — had to 
decide was this: — "Was Mr. Paul's notice' of December 10, 1888 
given ' two months at least before the determination of the tenancy,' 
within the meaning of section 7 of the Agricultural Holdings 
(England) Act, 1883?" Both Courts decided that the notice was 
given in time, or, in other words, that Mr. Paul's tenancy did not 
determine until February 11, 1889. The decision at first sight 
appears startling even to a lawyer, and still more so, I should 
imagine, to a layman ; for one would naturally suppose that the 
tenancy determined for all purposes at the date at which the 
tenant gave notice of its determination — viz., October 11, 1888 — and 
not at any other date ; but it was not so decided. 
It was submitted, on behalf of Lord Portarlington, that the notice 
of December 10, 1888, was rightly treated as a nullity, because it was 
