358 
Awards under the Agricultural Holdings Act. 
of Appeal. The case was heard on January 15 in the pre- 
sent year by Lord Halsbury (Ex-Lord-Chancellor), and the Lords 
Justices Lopes and Davey, who took time to consider their judg- 
ment until the 15th of the February following, when they reluc- 
tantly gave it in favour of the landlord. 
“In this case,” said Lord Halsbury, “with every disposition to 
decline to interfere with the proceedings in the County Court on the 
ground that, if it is possible for a person to render himself incapable 
of applying for a prohibition in such a case as this, the appellant has 
done so, I feel nevertheless constrained to decide that the writ must 
issue to prohibit further proceedings on the order of the County 
Court, so far as it is applicable to that portion of the award which 
is in respect of matters outside the Agricultural Holdings Act. It 
has been long settled that, where an objection to the jurisdiction of 
an inferior Court appears on the face of the proceedings, it is im- 
material by what means and by whom the Court is informed of such 
objection. The Court must protect the prerogative of the Crown 
and the due course of the administration of justice by prohibiting 
the inferior Court from proceeding in matters as to which it is 
apparent that it has no j urisdiction. Looking to what appears on 
the face of the award in this case, and applying to that the provi- 
sions of the Agricultural Holdings Act and the power of enforcing 
awards given by that Act, I think it is impossible to doubt that 
there is that on the face of the proceedings which shows that the 
judge, in granting execution under the provisions of that Act, was 
acting beyond his jurisdiction. The Act specifies the matters which 
are to be the subject of compensation under it, and it appears on the 
face of the award that there are matters included in the compensa- 
tion awarded which are outside the provisions of the Act. Section 
24 of the Act provides in substance that a sum awarded as com- 
pensation under the Act may be recovered on the order of the 
County Court judge as money recovered by an ordinary County 
Court judgment. It is apparent that in applying that Section to 
subject-matters which are not included in the provisions of the Act, 
the County Court was exceeding its jurisdiction. Under these cir- 
cumstances, reluctant as I am to aid the appellant in this case, I am 
unable to resist the conclusion that the writ ought to issue. Con- 
sidering the course of the litigation, I think the appellant ought not 
to have any costs of the proceedings except in this Court where he 
has succeeded.” 
And so Lopes, L. J. “ The award on the face of it discloses a 
want of jurisdiction. It contains and deals with matters which are 
not the subject of the Agricultural Holdings Act, matters out- 
side that Act, and which cannot be enforced under the 24th 
Section. In such circumstances, most reluctantly I am compelled to 
hold that the writ of prohibition must issue.” 
And Davey, L. J. in a similar strain : — 
“ The jurisdiction of the County Court in the matter is statutory, 
and is conferred by the Agricultural Holdings Act. 
“ It is obvious that Section 24 of the Act only applies to money 
