206 
The Agricultural Holdings Act. 
not delivered two months at least before October 11, 1888, when the 
tenancy was determined. That if the tenant's notice under the Act 
was to be delayed as this had been, no landlord would be safe, and 
his arrangements with an incoming tenant would be seriously 
prejudiced. That the Act does not permit the outgoing tenant to 
claim for improvements made after his notice has been given ; but 
that if this notice was held to be good, the tenant would be able 
to assert a claim in respect of the land held over during an occupa- 
tion of at least four months after his own determination of the 
tenancy of the whole farm. And further, that if the notice was good 
at all, it was so only as regards the 200 acres held over, and not as 
regards the 1,000 acres of winch possession was given up on October 
11 preceding. In spite, however, of these arguments, the Court, 
which consisted of Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice 
Mathew, without calling upon counsel in support of the notice, held 
that it was good. 
The Lord Chief J ustice, after stating the facts of the case, and 
referring to the seventh section of the above-mentioned Act, is 
reported by the Law Journal to have given judgment as follows : — 
" Now, this Act was passed by the Legislature with full know- 
ledge of the kind of subject matter and sorts of contracts to be 
dealt with under it ; and this very section, which gives the tenant 
a right to deliver a two months' notice of claim, gives the landlord 
an ecpual right to deliver a counter-notice of his intention to claim 
in respect of waste, or breach of covenant or agreement. So it 
was never intended that the landlord should be at the mercy of 
the tenant. It appears to me that the most just construction to 
place upon these words, 'determination of the tenancy,' is that 
they mean the end of the holding, which in the present case did 
not take place till February, 1889. This construction is equally fair 
for both parties, since it applies as much in favour of the landlord's 
counter-claim as of the tenant's claim. I cannot bring my mind to 
doubt but that these words do in reality mean the end of the 
holding ; that is to say, the end of the time for which by custom — 
and here the custom formed part of the contract — the tenant 
retained possession of the laud, even though he had given up a 
portion of his original occupation. Until the tenant had bad the 
full benefit of the agreement, and of the custom of the country, he 
could not possibly tell what his claim would be. Therefoie, to hold 
that a tenant in such a case as the present was out of time with his 
notice might give rise to cases of great hardship. Accordingly, I 
am of opinion that to give effect to the Act we must hold that these 
words, ' determination of the tenancy,' mean the end of the tenant's 
holding of the land." 
And Mr. Justice Mathew was of the same opinion, and said that 
he did not base it upon the facts or merits of the particular case 
before him. lie quite agreed that the words in section 7 of the Act, 
"determination of the tenancy," must mean the end of the entire 
holding. 
Ho far as I am aware, no similar case has ever been brought 
