566 
The Agricultural Holdings Act. 
tion of the crop ’ after the term of Whitsunday 1 The words of the 
demise are the same with regard to all three subjects, which are to 
be possessed for the space of nineteen years from the periods named 
respectively.” For these reasons his Lordship came to the conclusion 
that the contention that under the lease there was but one “ ish,” 
namely, as from Whitsunday when the tenancy of the grass land 
came to an end, could not be supported. 
Lord Watson also gave judgment to the same effect. He 
said : — That the contract embodied in the lease made effectual 
provision for three terms of entry, and three terms of “ ish,” in 
regard to different portions of the subjects let ; and that, until the 
arrival of each term of “ish,” a proper right of tenancy existed, 
with respect to such part of the subjects let as the tenant was 
bound to quit possession of at that term. That the “separation 
of the crops ” ought to be read as signifying the term of Martinmas 
(11th November), the two being in popular language and legal effect 
equivalent expressions when they occur in a Scotch lease. That the 
expression “determination of a tenancy,” in Secs. 2 and 7 of the 
statute, referred to the time when the tenant finally gave up 
possession of the subjects which in the statute are described as his 
“holding.” A holding which entitles the tenant to the benefit of 
the provisions of the statute must, according to Sec. 35 of the 
Scotch Act (Sec. 54 of the English Act), be either wholly agricultural 
or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as to the residue 
pastoral. Mr. Clay’s holding, in so far as it consisted of lands in 
crop after Whitsunday 1892, was agricultural, and that was sufficient 
for the disposal of the appeal. 
In the subsequent part of his judgment Lord Watson dealt 
with the further point, to which I alluded in the second of the 
Scotch cases which I reported in 1890, namely, whether the 
principle above enunciated applies to the case — so very common by 
custom in England — where the outgoing tenant has the right to use 
the barns and other farm buildings, or part of them, for some time 
after the period at which he gives up possession of the lands of the 
farm. On this point his Lordship is reported to have said that 
he entertained serious doubts whether, after Mr. Clay’s removal in 
the autumn of 1892, that gentleman remained in possession of any 
holding within the meaning of the Act, for his Lordship was of 
opinion that the bare possession of a barn, barnyard, and two 
cothouses, unconnected with any land either pastoral or agri- 
cultural, was not a possession of a holding recognised by the Act. 
This latter part of Lord Watson’s judgment, it will be noticed, 
confirmed the decision of the Sheriff of Aberdeenshire in the second 
Scotch case which I reported in 1890 ; and as the reasons for the 
judgment would be similar in cases of farms in England, it is only 
reasonable to infer that our English Courts would decide this point 
in the same way if it should come before them. 
This case of Black v. Clay is, I believe, the first that has been 
taken up to the House of Lords under either the English or the 
Scotch Agricultural Holdings Act ; and it occurs somewhat oppor- 
