Aivards under the Agricultural Holdings Act. 
357 
to procedure, and contained in Sections 7 to 28 (both inclusive) of 
it, should apply as well to any claim for allowance or compensation 
to be made under the lease as to any claim under the Act. 
The tenancy was determined on March 25, 1891. The tenant 
gave the landlord due notice of his intention to claim compensation 
for matters which were the subject of compensation under the 
lease, but the notice did not include any matters the subject of 
compensation under the Act. The landlord gave the tenant a 
counter notice of claim under the Act. The parties appointed 
referees in the ordinary course, and the referees an umpire. The 
referees being unable to agree, the umpire made an award, by which 
he awarded a lump sum of 92£. 12s. 9 d. to be paid by the landlord 
to the tenant, as the balance due to the latter after allowing the 
amount due to the former. 
In due time afterwards, the tenant applied to the County Court 
to enforce payment of the award under Section 24 of the Act, 
which enacts that, “ when any money agreed or awarded for 
compensation is not paid within 14 days after the time when it is 
agreed or awarded to be paid, it shall be recoverable upon order 
made by the judge of the County Court, as money ordered by a 
County Court under its ordinary jurisdiction to be paid is recover- 
able.” Upon such application, the landlord took objection to the 
form of the award, because it awarded a lump sum generally for 
compensation, and did not specify particulars as required by Section 
19 of the Act. He did not upon that occasion take any objection 
to the jurisdiction of the County Court. By consent of both 
parties, the award was remitted to the umpire in order that he 
might amend it in conformity with Section 19. This the umpire 
did, and, as amended, the award showed that it included compensa- 
tion to the tenant for matters which were the subject of compensa- 
tion under the lease, but not under the Act. The landlord appealed 
against the amended award on the ground, amongst several others, 
that compensation had been awarded for certain improvements, acts, 
and things in respect of which the tenant was not entitled to com- 
pensation under the Act ; the County Court judge, however, dis- 
missed the appeal because the landlord’s notice of appeal against the 
award was not given within the time (7 days after the delivery of 
the award) prescribed by the Act, but he stated a special case for 
the judgment of the High Court of J ustice. Upon that case coming 
on for hearing, it was ordered, by consent of the parties, that the 
matter of the appeal should be remitted to the County Court judge 
to be re-heard upon its merits. So the case went back to the 
County Court judge, who affirmed the award, and made an order for 
the payment of the amount awarded. 
Thereupon the landlord applied to the Queen’s Bench Division 
of the High Court for a writ to prohibit the County Court from 
proceeding upon the order that it had made, on the ground that 
Section 24 of the Act did not give the County Court judge any 
authority to enforce the award. The Divisional Court refused to 
prder the writ tp issue, and the landlord appealed to the Court 
