16 The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906. 
Let it be assumed that a claim has been made and the 
matter has been referred to the arbitrator to assess the amount 
to be paid, then by Sub-section 3, Section 2 of the Act, if the 
landlord is able to prove that under a contract of tenancy, 
made before the commencement of the Act, compensation for 
damage by game was payable by him, or that in fixing the 
rent to be paid under such contract, allowance in respect of 
such damage to an agreed amount was expressly made, the 
arbitrator must make such deduction from the compensation 
which would otherwise be payable under this section, as may 
appear just. 
It would appear from a consideration of these provisions, 
that in contracts of tenancy made after the commencement of the 
Act, any provisions for a fixed amount of compensation, or 
compensation byway of reduced rent would be void, since such 
provisions might be said to limit the tenant’s right to compen- 
sation. 
The landlord, where the right to kill and take the game is 
not vested in him, but in some other person, will be entitled 
to be indemnified by such other person against all claims for 
compensation under this section. These cases can only be 
those in- which- the tenant has exercised his rights against 
the landlord, no right, for instance, can exist where the tenant 
has disposed of the sporting rights. 
In concluding my examination of this Act, I can only 
reiterate my belief that notwithstanding inexactitudes of 
expression, probably arising from its genesis as a private 
member’s bill, and the looseness of draughtsmanship, the 
Act deserves to meet with suQcess. The criticism that I 
have directed has been made from the point of view of those 
who may be called upon to explain or interpret it ; this has 
nothing to do with the equitable or inequitable view that 
may be taken of its provisions. Time alone will show 
whether the Act allays the fears of its opponents, or disappoints 
the hopes of its friends. 
Arthue P. Polby. 
Temple, E.C. 
