130  Contemporary  Agricultural  Law. 
right  of  impounding  sheep  for  trespass  arose.  The  plaintiff 
was  a commoner  having  a right  to  pasture  sheep  on  Dartmoor, 
and  put  some  Scottish  sheep  there  which,  being  more  active 
than  the  ordinary  sheep  of  the  moor,  got  over  the  fence  of  the 
defendant,  who  was  owner  of  an  intake.  He  distrained  them 
damage  feasant  and  impounded  them.  The  plaintiff  sued  for 
damages  for  illegal  distress,  but  he  failed,  as  the  Court  held  that 
although  the  defendant  was  under  an  obligation  to  fence  against 
commonable  animals  (which  included  sheep)  by  the  custom  of  the 
moorland,  the  obligation  did  not  extend  to  sheep  of  the  peculiarly 
wandering  and  active  description  which  characterised  the  plain- 
tiff’s Scottish  sheep.  They  also  held  that  the  defendant  was 
entitled  to  impound  at  any  place  within  the  hundred  although 
more  than  three  miles  from  the  place  of  seizure. 
3.  Landlord  and  Tenant.  There  have  been  some  interesting 
decisions  under  this  head  during  the  year.  In  Parker  v. 
Jones  (1910,  2 K.B.,  32 ; 79  L.J.K.B.,  921)  the  landlord  in  1896 
let  a house  and  field  to  Hamer  on  a yearly  tenancy,  and  the 
lease  contained  a covenant  by  the  lessee  not  to  underlet  the 
whole  or  any  part  of  the  demised  premises  without  the  leave, 
in  writing,  of  the  landlord.  On  November  12,  1899,  Hamer, 
without  the  leave  of  the  landlord,  sub-let  the  land  to  the  plain- 
tiff on  a yearly  tenancy,  but  neither  the  landlord  or  his  agent 
had  knowledge  of  this  sub-letting.  Hamer  surrendered  his 
lease  to  the  landlord  in  June,  1909,  who  thereupon  re-let  the 
property  to  the  defendant.  The  plaintiff  remained  in  possession 
until  the  defendant  entered  and  turned  his  cattle  out,  where- 
upon the  plaintiff  brought  the  action  to  recover  possession  and 
for  damages.  The  Court  held  that  the  surrender  by  Hamer  did 
not  affect  the  plaintiff’s  tenancy,  though  it  would  have  been 
otherwise  if  Hamer  had  forfeited  his  lease  by  breach  of  covenant. 
The  case  also  might  have  been  different  if  the  landlord  had 
entered  and  treated  the  plaintiff  as  a trespasser.  As  between  the 
plaintiff  and  the  new  tenant  the  plaintiff’s  tenancy  could  not  be 
got  rid  of  by  the  landlord  granting  another  lease  incompatible 
with  it.  In  Matthews  v.  Smallivood  (1910, 1 Ch.,  777  ; 79  L.J.Ch., 
322)  it  was  held  that  where  there  is  a patent  ambiguity  in  a 
lease  the  counterpart  may  be  looked  to  for  explanation,  and  in 
that  case  the  ambiguous  word  ‘‘covenant”  in  the  lease  was 
proved  to  be  in  the  plural  “covenants”  in  the  counterpart. 
The  defendants  in  Hopley  v.  Tarvin  Parish  Council  (74  J.P., 
209)  were  a parish  council  who  took  a lease  of  12^  acres  of 
land  in  plots  for  allotments  and  covenanted  to  keep  the  demised 
land  “clean  and  in  good  heart  and  condition.”  In  June,  1909, 
the  plaintiff,  who  was  the  lessor,  served  a notice  on  the  Council 
with  a view  of  forfeiting  the  lease,  setting  out  that  tbe  Council 
had  not  kept  the  premises  clean  and  in  good  heart  and  condition 
