The Agricultural Holdings Act. 
641 
such a charge. The difficulty in the case was caused by the word- 
ing, not only of the section which I have just quoted, which it will 
be noticed speaks merely of "a landlord," but also of the section 
(61) which contains definitions of numerous words and expressions 
used in the Act, amongst others of the word "landlord." Such 
definition runs thus : — " Landlord in relation to a holding, means 
any person for the time being entitled to receive the rents and 
profits of any holding,"' and at the end of the section there is this 
clause : " The designations of landlord and tenant shall continue to 
apply to the parties until the conclusion of any proceedings taken 
\mder, or in pursuance of this Act, in respect of compensation for 
improvements, or under any agreement made in pursuance of this 
Act.' 
The facts of the case were as follows : — 
Mr. Gough, as tenant for Ufe of a fann, let the same to a tenant 
from year to year. In March, 1SS9, the tenant gave notice of his 
intention to quit the farm at Lady Day, 1S90, and in January, 
1890, served upon Mr. Gough notice of a claim for 130/. for unex- 
hausted improvements imder the pro^isions of the Agricultural 
Holdings Act. On April 5 the amount payable by Mr. Gough to 
the tenant was fixed by valuers appointed under the pro^~isions of 
the Act at 35/. On April S Mr. Gough died, having up to that 
date been in receipt of the rent of the farm as tenant for life, and 
on April 24 his executors paid the 35/. to the tenant. They then 
presented a petition in the Wells County Court asking for a charge 
upon the farm in i-espect of the 35/. under section '29 of the Act. 
The remainderman, or person who had at Mr. Gough's death come 
into possession of the farm, opposed the petition, and the County- 
Court judge held that the executors were not the " landlord " 
within the definition given in section 61 of the Act, and were there- 
fore not entitled to the charge. 
From this decision the executors appealed to the Queen's Bench 
Division of the High Court, and the appeal was heard by Mr, 
Justice Cave and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams in January last. 
Those two learned judges, after taking time to consider the case, 
differed in opinion, the former holding that the County Court judge 
was right and that the executors could not obtain the charge, while 
the latter held that the County Court judge was wrong, and that the 
executors could obtain the charge. Under these circumstances the 
decision of the County Court judge held good, but the executors 
had leave given them to carry the case to the Court of Appeal if 
they wished to do so. This they did, and on June 26 last the case 
came before the Court of Appeal, which consisted of the Master o£ 
the Rolls (Lord Esher) and Lords Justices Bowen and Kay. All 
these three learned judges were of opinion that the County Court 
judge and Mr. Justice Cave were wrong, and that Mr. Justice 
^ aughan Williams was right in the conclusion at which he had 
arrived : viz., that Mr. Gough's executors had the right to obtain 
the charge they sought. The judgments of the Master of the Eolls 
and of Lord Justice Bowen proceeded mainly upon technical 
