The Agricultural Holdings Act. 
565 
dates hereof, is declared to be to the houses (with the exceptions 
aftermentioned), grass and fallow lands on May 26, 1860 ; to the 
arable land in corn crop at the separation of the crop of the same 
year from the ground ; and to the barns and barnyard and two 
cothouses at Whitsunday 1861, from these periods respectively to 
be possessed by the said John Clay during the space above 
written.” 
In May 1891 Mr. Black, who was the owner of the farm, 
obtained a decree ordering Mr. Clay to remove (following the stipu- 
lations in the lease) from the houses, grass and fallow lands at the 
term of Whitsunday 1892 ; from the arable land at the separation 
of the crop of the same year from the ground ; and from the barns 
and barnyard and two cothouses at Whitsunday 1893. 
Mr. Clay accordingly quitted possession of the houses, with the 
exception of the barns, barnyard and two cothouses, and also of 
the grass and fallow lands at the term of Whitsunday 1892 (May 
1892), and on June 6th following he gave Mr. Black notice of a 
claim for compensation for improvements under the provisions of 
the abovementioned Section 7 of the Scotch Act. Mr. Clay’s next 
step was to apply to the Sheriff of the County under the Scotch 
Amendment Act 1889 (which has made the proceedings in Scotland 
for the appointment of the tribunal to assess the compensation much 
simpler than the proceedings in Scotch cases originally were and 
than the proceedings in English cases still are), to appoint a compe- 
tent and impartial person to be the referee. Mr. Black thereupon 
commenced an action for an interdict or injunction to restrain all 
further proceedings towards the assessment of compensation, upon 
the ground that the notice served upon him was not in time 
within the meaning of the aforesaid seventh section ; his contention 
being that the lease determined at Whitsunday 1892, when Mr. 
Clay ceased to hold the gi'ass and fallow lands, and that Mr. Clay’s 
subsequent possession of the arable land was not a possession as 
tenant, but only a privilege accorded to one whose tenancy was 
already at an end. 
The Courts of First Instance and of Appeal in Scotland having 
decided adversely to Mr. Black, and refused to stop the proceedings 
for assessing compensation, Mr. Black appealed to the House of 
Lords, and that House, on June 22 of the present year, unani- 
mously affirmed the decision appealed from. 
In the course of his judgment the Lord Chancellor (Lord 
Herschell) is reported to have said : — 
“ It appears impossible to avoid the conclusion that, as to the 
barns, barnyard, and cothouses, a tenancy is created a year later, 
and terminates a year later than the tenancy of the grass lands : 
and if there be a separate ish 1 or determination of the tenancy as 
to these, how could the lease be construed otherwise than as creating 
a tenancy in the arable lands which is to continue until the ‘separa- 
1 “ Ish ” is a Scotch law term which is equivalent to the English expression, 
termination of a lease or tenancy. 
VOL. V. T. S. — 19 ” P P 
