Freedom of Cropping. 
7 
defined as consisting “ in the case of the disposal of the produce 
of the holding, in the return to the holding of the full equiva- 
lent manurial value to the holding of all crops sold off or 
removed from the holding in contravention of the custom, 
contract, or agreement.” 
Whilst* apparently the landlord could, under the existing 
law, have always proceeded for a penalty or forfeiture where 
the holding was injured in contravention of the terms of the 
lease, a power in express terms is now conferred upon him by 
Sub-section 2 of Section 3. This sub-section provides that if 
the tenant exercises his rights, that is, if he chooses his own 
method of cropping or disposes of the produce as he pleases, 
and in doing so injures or deteriorates the holding, or is likely 
to injure or deteriorate it, the landlord, without prejudice to 
any other remedy which may be open to him, can proceed to 
recover damages “in respect of such injury or deterioration 
at any time, and should the case so require, he can obtain an 
injunction, or in Scotland an interdict restraining the exercise 
of the tenant of his new rights under this ection in that 
manner, and the amount of such damages may, in default 
of agreement, be determined by arbitration.” It will of course 
be a matter for the landlord’s consideration whether the cost 
of procedure by injunctions would or would not be justified 
in the circumstances of each case ; and in estimating this, 
regal’d must be had as to whether the action could be commenced 
in the County Court or not. 
It is possible that hereafter Section 3 will occasion con- 
siderable trouble ; for the landlord’s legal power to interfere is 
not confined to cases where actual damage is done, but extends 
to cases where the tenant’s methods are likely to occasion injury 
or deterioration to the holding, that is, to anticipated mischief. 
Let it be assumed, for instance, that a tenant is pursuing his 
own methods of cropping, methods which are neither in 
accordance with the terms of his tenancy agreement or the 
custom of the country. A landlord might honestly and with 
perfect justice urge that the holding was being injured or 
deteriorated. The tenant might reply : I have already made 
suitable and adequate provision to protect the holding. The 
landlord might answer : I am not satisfied ; and there directly 
would be created an issue of fact. But what meaning is to be 
attached to the words “ likely to.” On one construction these 
words might be said to seriously interfere with the freedom of 
cropping and disposal of produce conferred upon the tenant. 
In any event they render the section difficult to understand. 
To prevent doubt as to whether the provision that the 
tenant makes to protect the holding from injury or deteriora- 
tion required by this section is an improvement under Part 
