Awards under the Agricultural Holdings Act. 
359 
agreed or awarded to be paid in respect of matters within the Act, and 
gives no jurisdiction over awards as to other matters made pursuant 
to a contractual submission or with the consent of the parties. 
Indeed, it was not and could not be denied that as far forth as the 
award related to matters outside the Act, the County Court judge 
had no jurisdiction to enforce the award, and the applicant was 
prima facie entitled to the prohibition. But it was argued that 
the granting of a prohibition is discretionary, and that the applicant 
was estopped or precluded by his conduct from claiming a prohibi- 
tion.” And after considering this argument at length and deciding 
against it, the learned Lord Justice concluded his judgment thus : 
“ Although I think the applicant is not precluded from asking for 
a prohibition, yet he is doing so in breach of his contract, and I think 
there should be no costs in the Court below; but the appellant 
should have the costs of the appeal.” 
Two points may clearly be deduced from this case. First, that 
notwithstanding that Section 21 of the Act enacts that “ a sub- 
mission or award shall not be made a rule of any Court, or be 
removable by any process into any Court, and an award shall not 
be questioned or otherwise than as provided by the Act,” and that 
Section 22 enacts that “ the decision of the County Court on 
appeal shall be final, save that the judge shall, at the request of 
either party, state a special case on a question of law for the judg- 
ment of the High Court of Justice, and the decision of the High 
Court shall be final ” ; yet references under the Act may be made 
the subjects of appeal to the Court of Appeal, and apparently 
even to the House of Lords. Secondly, that notwithstanding the 
contract of the parties, there should be separate awards for compensa- 
tion payable under lease agreement or custom, and for compensa- 
tion payable under the Act. The latter point may easily be 
amended, but it does not seem so easy to prevent the proverbial 
“ coach-and-four ” being driven through the appeal sections. 
S. B. L. Druce. 
9 Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C. 
OVERHANGING TREES. 
In the last number of the Journal (Pt. I., Vol. V. 3rd Series, p. 173) 
I reported two cases relating to this subject which had been decided 
by Courts of First Instance. In the first the plaintiff obtained 
damages for the loss of a colt, the death of which was alleged to have 
been caused by eating the defendant’s yew bushes ; in the second the 
defendant was held to be liable in damages for having cut some 
branches off the plaintiff’s trees, which overhung the defendant’s 
premises, without having given previous notice to the plaintiff. 
Both these cases have been reversed on appeal since the note was 
