Contemporary  Agricultural  Law.  149 
from  a mortgage  created  by  a landlord  in  respect  of  which, 
admittedly,  no  deduction  could  be  allowed.  The  House  of 
Lords  reversed  this  decision,  holding  that  the  rateable  value 
of  the  lands  liable  to  the  rent-charge  should  be  ascertained  on 
the  footing  that  all  the  protected  lands,  whether  liable  to  the 
rent-charge  or  not,  contributed  in  proportion  to  the  benefit 
which  they  received.  The  Lord  Chancellor  said,  “No  doubt, 
if  ffhis  is  done,  a deduction  will  have  to  be  allowed  on  those 
lands  which  enjoy  protection,  but  are  exempt  from  contri- 
buting. I cannot  see  why  this  should  not  be  so.  These 
exempted  lands  have  somehow  acquired  rights  as  against  the 
other  lands,  whether  by  purchase  or  by  some  other  means,  in 
the  remote  past.  They  are,  on  that  account,  more  valuable  to 
their  owners,  and  the  contributing  lands  are  less  valuable. 
But  the  rating  authority  is  not  concerned  with  that.”  The 
result  was  that  the  lands  affected  by  the  rent-charge  were 
held  entitled  in  the  assessment  of  rateable  value  to  a deduction 
of  a proportionate  part  of  the  rent-charge,  though  not  of  the 
whole  as  it  was  at  first  contended. 
5.  Produce.  Under  this  head  there  are  three  cases  dealing 
with  the  supply  of  milk  which  may  be  noticed.  In  Tyler  v. 
Dairy  Supply  Company  (6  L.G.R.,  422  ; 98  L.T.,  867),  it  was 
held  that  a medical  officer  of  health,  or  other  officer  authorised 
by  Section  3 of  the  Sale  of  Food  and  Drugs  Act  Amendment 
Act,  1879,  to  procure  samples  of  milk  in  course  of  delivery  for 
the  purpose  of  analysis,  has  not  necessarily  himself  to  procure 
the  samples,  but  may  do  so  by  his  agent  acting  under  his 
instructions. 
Bellamy  v.  Great  Western  and  Metropolitan  Dairies,  Ltd. 
(6  L.G.R.,  772  ; 98  L.T.  757),  was  a case  where  the  defendant 
company  were  prosec-uted  under  the  Weights  and  Measures 
Act,  1875,  Section  25,  in  respect  of  a milk  churn  belonging 
to  them,  for  having  in  their  possession  for  use  for  trade  a 
measure  which  was  unjust.  The  churn  was  one  of  several 
churns  supplied  by  the  company  for  use  by  a farmer  who 
sold  milk  to  them.  They  were  marked  to  indicate  barn 
gallons,  and  the  farmer  in  fact  estimated  the  quantity  of 
milk  supplied  by  him  from  the  marks,  and  made  out  con- 
signment tickets  stating  the  quantity  in  each  churn 
accordingly.  As  a rule  the  company  accepted  the  tickets 
as  correct  for  the  purpose  of  their  accounts  with  the  farmer, 
though  they  kept  accurate  measures  for  testing  the  quantity 
of  milk  if  necessary,  and  used  those  measures  for  measur- 
ing the  milk  if  there  was  any  doubt  as  to  the  quantity. 
The  secretary  of  the  company  stated  in  evidence  that  the 
company  never  measured  by  the  marks  on  the  churns,  and 
never  intended  them  to  be  used  as  measures  by  the  farmer  or 
