181 
Contemporary Agricultural Law . 
the holding should be let or treated as a market garden.” He 
claimed compensation for a forcing house erected by him in 
1902 for the production of early rhubarb and for rhubarb 
stools left' in the ground. It was held by the Court that 
“then” in the above section meant thereafter,” following 
the decision of the House of Lords in Smith v. Callander 
(70 L.J.P.C., 53 ; 1901, A.C., 297), and that the tenant therefore 
would be entitled to compensation but for a letter from the 
landlord’s factor written while the forcing house was in 
course of erection which the Court held to be a “ notice of 
dissent ” within the section in so far as the improvements 
claimed were in contravention of the lease. The tenant had 
not cultivated the whole of his farm as a market garden, but 
annually kept fifty acres not always the same fifty acres under 
such cultivation. It was held (Lord Johnston dissenting) that 
the fact that the ground cultivated as a market garden had 
varied from time to time did not prevent the fifty acres under 
cultivation at the expiry of the lease from being a “ market 
garden ” within the meaning of Section 29 of the Act for the 
purpose of a claim for compensation for improvements. 
In Re Pemberton and Cooper (107 L.T., 716), the tenants of 
a farm in Kent upon which they maintained a flock of sheep 
proposed, after receiving notice to quit from the landlord, to 
plough up certain land laid down to grass by them many years 
previously and to plant corn thereon. The landlord obtained 
an interim injunction until the trial of the action restraining 
them from so doing, accompanied by an undertaking that he 
would abide by any order which the Court might make as to 
damages in case the Court should thereafter be of opinion that 
the tenants had sustained any by reason of the interim injunc- 
tion having been granted. At the trial of the action the Court 
held that the tenants were entitled to plough up the land 
and consequently an inquiry was directed as to the damages 
sustained by them in consequence of the interim injunction, 
which compelled them to keep the land in grass. The tenants 
had kept their sheep on the land, and in consequence of the 
dry season of 1911 the sheep became depreciated in value. 
They claimed as damages (1) the net profit they would have 
made if they had ploughed the land and planted corn, (2) the 
amount by which their sheep had deteriorated in value. The 
arbitrator to whom the question of damages was referred found 
that the net profit under (1) would have been 533?., and the 
deterioration under (2) was 101?. On a case stated for the 
decision of the Court, it was contended for the landlord that 
the damages under head (2) were too remote, and could not be 
recovered. Bankes, J., before whom the case came, held that 
the loss under the second head was in the contemplation of the 
