Contemporary  Agricultural  Law. 
143 
precisely  the  kind  of  land  which  could  be  worked  in  con- 
junction with  the  Hall  Farm.  On  October  8,  1908,  he  also 
purchased  the  Hall  Farm,  which  he  had  formerly  rented, 
though,  as  he  stated,  he  would  not  have  purchaseci  it  had  he 
not  secured  the  light  land  farm.  After  purchasing  the  two 
farms  he  had  enlarged  the  farm  buildings  at  the  Hall  Farm,  in 
order  that  he  might  work  the  two  farms  together.  For  the 
working  of  the  Hall  Farm  only  the  enlarged  buildings  were 
unnecessarily  large.  The  Norfolk  County  Council  served 
notice  of  an  order,  under  the  Small  Holdings  and  Allot- 
ments Act,  1908,  for  the  compulsory  purchase  by  them  of  the 
whole  of  the  light  land  farm  for  allotments,  and  the  Board  of 
Agriculture  and  Fisheries,  notwithstinding  Mr.  Ringer’s  objec- 
tions, confirmed  the  order.  Mr.  Ringer  then  applied  to  the 
Court  of  King’s  Bench  for  a rule  calling  upon  the  Norfolk 
County  Council  to  show  cause  why  a certiorari  should  not 
issue  to  remove,  for  the  purpose  of  quashing  it,  the  order  for 
compulsory  purchase,  on  the  ground  that  the  order  had  been 
made  in  disregard  of  Section  41  of  the  Act,  which  forbids  the 
taking  of  an  undue  or  inconvenient  quantity  of  land  from  any 
one  owner,  &c.  This  was  refused,  on  account  of  the  provisions 
of  Section  39  (iii.)  of  the  Small  Holdings  and  Allotments  Act, 
1903,  whereby  it  is  enacted  that  an  order  for  compulsory 
acquisition  under  the  Act,  when  confirmed  by  the  Board  of 
Agriculture  and  Fisheries,  “ shall  become  final  and  have  effect 
as  if  enacted  in  this  Act  ; and  the  confirmation  by  the  Board 
shall  be  conclusive  evidence  that  the  requirements  of  this  Act 
have  been  complied  with,  and  that  the  order  has  been  duly 
made  and  is  within  the  powers  of  the  Act.”  The  Court  there- 
fore held  that  it  was  prevented  from  having  jurisdiction  to 
entertain  any  questions  in  respect  of  the  validity  of  any  order 
already  confirmed  by  the  Board  of  Agriculture  and  Fisheries, 
the  order  having  become  ipso  facto  final,  and  having  the  effect 
of  an  Act  of  Parliament.  The  Judges  pointed  out  that  the 
Board  is  placed  in  a position  of  absolute  supremacy  by  the  Act, 
and  the  powers  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Courts  of  Law  are 
consequently  entirely  ousted  when  it  has  once  confirmed  a 
compulsory  order  for  purchase  or  hiring.  The  Scottish  case  of 
Stewart  v.  Williamson  (1909,  Sess.  Cas.,  1254),  which  deals  with 
Section  11  (i.)  of  the  Agricultural  Holdings  (Scotland)  Act, 
1908,  which  corresponds  with  Section  13  (i.)  of  the  English 
Agricultural  Holdings  Act,  1908,  is  also  important.  The  Court 
there  held  that  the  section  applies  to  a valuation  of  sheep  stock 
between  landlord  and  tenant  at  the  expiry  of  lease,  and  that  the 
value  of  the  stock  must  be  therefore  determined  by  a single 
arbitrator  under  the  section,  notwithstanding  that  the  lease 
may  provide  for  a different  mode  of  valuation. 
