Contemporary  Agricultural  Law.  147 
(4)  that  the  road  was  not  scarified  ; (5)  that  an  excessive  thick- 
ness of  stone  was  laid  over  the  whole  road.  The  jury  before 
whom  the  case  was  tried  found  (1)  that  there  was  negligence 
on  the  part  of  the  defendant's  servants  ; (2)  that  the  driver 
could  not  by  taking  reasonable  precautions  have  avoided  the 
consequences  of  the  negligence  ; and  (3)  that  the  death  of  the 
horse  was  the  natural  and  necessary  consequence  of  the  negli- 
gence. On  these  findings  judgment  was  entered  by  the  County 
Court  Judge  for  the  plaintifi:'.  The  Corrrt  of  Appeal,  however, 
held  that  the  plaintiff  could  not  recover  as  the  driver  of  the 
waggon  had  the  opportunity  of  appreciating  the  difficulty  and 
danger  to  his  horses  and  elected  to  run  the  risk  of  crossing 
the  loose  granite  instead  of  turning  back.  Having  so  elected, 
damages  could  not  be  recovered  from  the  road  authority, 
although  their  servants  might  have  been  guilty  of  negligence. 
The  case  of  Johnson  v.  Wilson  (1909,  2 K.B.,  497  ; 78 
L.J.K.B.,  912)  related  to  the  exemption  of  farmers  from  the 
necessity  of  taking  out  dog  licences.  The  Court  decided  that 
where  a certificate  of  exemption  is  claimed  by  a farmer  under 
Section  22  of  the  Customs  and  Inland  Revenue  Act,  1878,  in 
respect  of  two  dogs  “ kept  by  him  solely  for  use  in  tending 
sheep  or  cattle,”  the  Justices  are  not  entitled  under  Section  5, 
Sub-Section  1 of  the  Dogs  Act,  1906,  to  refuse  their  consent  to 
the  grant  of  such  certificate  merely  on  the  ground  that  they 
consider  that  only  one  dog  is  necessary  for  the  stock  on  the 
applicant’s  farm.  Lord  Alverstone,  L.J.,  said,  “ The  Justices 
have  asked  us  whether  a Petty  Sessional  Court  is  bound  under 
Section  22  of  the  Act  of  1878  and  Section  5 of  the  Dogs  Act, 
1906,  to  give  their  consent  to  two  exemptions  from  dog  duty 
in  the  case  of  every  applicant  who,  being  a farmer,  keeps  two 
dogs  solely  for  use  in  tending  sheep  or  cattle  on  an  enclosed 
farm.  The  question  must,  in  my  opinion,  be  answered  in  the 
affirmative.  Subject  to  the  Justices  being  satisfied  that  the 
above-mentioned  conditions  for  obtaining  exemption  are 
fulfilled,  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  exemption  in  respect  of 
two  dogs,  and  the  Justices  are  not  entitled  to  cut  down  the 
exemption  to  an  exemption  for  one  dog  merely  because  they 
think  that  one  dog  is  sufficient  for  the  applicant’s  farm.” 
3.  Landlord  and  Tenant.  The  decisions  during  the  past 
year  bearing  on  the  legal  relations  of  landlord  and  tenant  as 
regards  agricultural  land  are  not  numerous.  Re  Viola's  Lease., 
Humphrey  v.  Stenbury  (1909,  1 Ch.,  244  ; 78  L.J.Ch.,  128),  is 
to  the  effect  that  where  there  is  a lease  to  two  joint  lessees  for 
a term  of  years  determinable  on  notice  by  “ the  lessees,”  the 
notice  to  be  effectual  should  be  signed  by  both  of  them,  and 
will  not  be  good  if  signed  by  one  only  in  the  absence  of  proof 
(express  or  implied)  of  the  authority  of  the  signing  lessee  to 
