688 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER . 
[ December 24, 1891. 
various coloured Calanthes growing, as it were, out of the Ferns. 
Pots and bulbs are hiddeD, and the effect thereby, of coune, is much 
improved. 
A houseful of Eucharis we noticed was a sight to remember, 
and some fine Pancratium fragrans, one large plant having 
carried duting one season no loss than forty-three spikes. Among 
Orchids Cypripediums are doing well, and Phalsenopsis are a treat 
to behold. Mr. Coomber had not sent all his good things in the 
way of fruit to London, although the three Pines for which the 
R.H.S. awarded him a silver medal had been dispatched. Some 
very fine fruits remained at home, and trees and plants all pro¬ 
mised well for equally good results to follow. J. A. Rolls, Esq., 
anl Mr. Coomber have a similar enthusiasm in horticultural 
matters, and consequently the best possible results are obtained.— 
Visitor. 
AN INTERESTING CASE. 
In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) an interesting 
case was tried before Mr. Justice Kekewich. It was an action brought by 
Sir IleDry Biuce Meux, Bart, against Mr. Cobley, and the trial, which 
occupied the greater part of two days last week, raised a question of 
Borne interest upon the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883. The object of 
the action was, in substance, to prevent the defendant, who was lessee 
of a farm under the plaintiff, from converting it into a market garden 
by erecting thereon glass houses for the cultivation of Tomatoes, Grapes, 
Mushrooms, and other market produce of that character. The facts 
were shortly these. By a lease, dated the 21st of January, 1889, the 
plaintiff, Sir H. B. Meux, demised to the defendant the Bulls-cross 
Farm, iu Che3hunt and Enfield, in the counties of Hertford and 
Middlesex, adjoining plaintiff’s mansion, Theobald’s Park, and consisting 
of arable and pasture land, together with the messuages and farm 
buildings thereon, comprising about 152 acres, at a rent of £225, rights 
of sporting being expressly reserved to the lessor, and the lease con¬ 
tained a covenant by the defendant that he would in all respects 
cultivate and manage the farm and every part thereof “ in a good, 
proper, and husbandlike manner according to the best rules of husbandry 
practised in the neighbourhood,” and would at all times use his and 
their utmost endeavour to preserve the game on the demised premises 
and the nests and eggs of all partridges and pheasants. Tbe plaintiff’s 
complaint was that, without his consent, the defendant, iu 1889, erected 
on the “ arable” land of the farm two glasshouses for tbe cultivation of 
Tomatoes and other hothouse produce for the London market, and that 
in 1890.'he erected a third glass house, in spite of the remonstrances of 
the plaintiff’s bailiff; also that he was intending to erect additional 
houses. The plaintiff contended that the erection of glass houses for the 
purposes aforesaid constituted such a change in the mode of cultivation 
stipulated for by the lease as to amount to a breach of covenant, and 
that the conversion of the farm into a market garden was “ waste ” on 
the defendant’s part, and would cause loss to, and impose additional 
burden on, the plaintiff. The plaintiff accordingly claimed an injunction 
to restrain the defendant from committing the acts complained of. The 
defendant contended that ,he bad the right to erect glass houses on the 
land, and that the same constituted an improvement to the farm and the 
inheritance thereof. He also pleaded acquiescence or consent on the 
part of the plaintiff. He also contended that the erection of the houses 
was authorised by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, and that they 
were buildings which, having regard to the provisions of that Act, might 
he removed by the tenant at the expiration of his tenancy, or might be 
bought by the landlord. 
Mr. Justice Kekewich said, “Much encumbered with rubbish” 
was the phrase he applied to this case twenty-four hours ago, and he 
deliberately applied the same phrase to it again. A gr^at deal of the 
time occupied, and of the heavy costs incurred, was attributable to what 
Iiis Lordship ventured to call the “ rubbish” which had been imported 
into the case. If the case had been presented to the Court on its merits 
the whole of it might have been disposed of in two or three hours. One 
point urged by the plaintiff was that the buildings were an eyesore. 
His Lordship had never heard of a case in which a tenant could be 
prevented from erecting a building on his land, on the ground that it 
might be an eyesore or not agreeable to his neighbour. Then it was 
said that what the defendant had done or threatened to do would cause 
injury to the inheritance. In the first place, there was no evidence that 
growing market produce would throw a burden upon the inheritance. 
That was no increase of the burden. The only questions His Lordship 
had to consider were—first, whether what the defendant was doing was 
within the terms of the lease ; and secondly, whether, irrespective of the 
terms of the lease, it was “ waste ” according to the common law. His 
Lordship came to the lease, and upon that there was a point of real 
importance—namely, whether, under a lease of what was called “agri¬ 
cultural land,” the tenant was entitled to put up glass houses for the 
cultivation of non-agricultural produce, such as Tomatoes, Grapes, and 
the like. It was to he observed that, although this was a lease of a 
farm that is to say, an agricultural lease—there was no prohibitive 
covenant against the lessee’s doing things of this kind, and also no 
provision for a rotation of crops ; therefore the lessee was left at large 
to cultivate the land at his discretion, the only restriction on that 
discretion being that he was to cultivate “in a proper and husbandlike 
manner according to the best rule3 of husbandry practised in the 
neighbourhood ; ” and he was also bound at the end of the term to yield 
up in good condition not only the exisffng buildings, but all fixtures and 
other tilings attached to or set up on any part of the demised premises ; 
so that the lease contemplated certain additions in the way of fixtures. 
Also it was to be observed that anything of this kind done was to be 
done at the tenant’s risk. He could not compe' the landlord to take it 
or pay for it, so that, after spending perhaps hundreds of pounds on the 
property, the tenant might he compelled to go out of possession without 
having got anything but a poor return for his expenditure, and possibly 
without getting anything back. This was so if the Agricultural Hold¬ 
ings Act, 1883, applied, except as to buildings erected with the landlord’s 
consent. 
Now, what was the tenant here doing which was not “ according to 
the best rules of husbandry practised in the neighbourhood ? ” One 
must bear in mind the change of circumstances in the neighbourhood, 
and the mode of cultivation of land now adopted there. Oue must look 
and see what was going on in the neighbourhood, and not exclude the 
consideration which came within one’s own extra-judicial knowledge 
that the wants of the metropolis and the neighbourhood were con¬ 
stantly extending and necessitated the increase of market tardens. 
Then there was the consideration that in the neighbourhood of this 
farm there were other market gardens and also other farms conducted 
on the principles which the defendant had adopted to his own advantage 
—name y, combining the farm proper with the market garden proper. 
His Lordship could not see that this was not using the land according 
to the best rules of husbandry practised in the neighbourhood. Con¬ 
struing the case according to the usages of mankind and the words of 
the lease, he saw no reason why the defendant should not ert-ct such 
glass houses as he thought fit. His Lordship was of opinion that the 
defendant was entitled to use the ground as a market garden, and, if so, 
he was entitled to cover it with glass houses and derive advantage from 
it in that way. If that was expressly sinctioned by the lease, that 
could not be “ waste.” The tenant could not commit waste as against 
his landlord if the landlord had by special contract given him leave to 
do so. Was what had been done “waste?” Perhaps, technic illy, it 
was ; but supposing it was, it did not follow that the plaintiff could 
recover damages, and if he could it by no means followed that he could 
get an injunction. His Lordship then referred upon that point to 
“Doherty v. Allman” (3 App. Ca., 709) and “Jones v. Chappell” (20 
Eq., 539), and proceeded :—Then was there any injury to the inherit¬ 
ance? The evidence showed that to be an absurdity ; and that, s > far 
from the erection of these houses being an injury to the inheritance, it 
would be an advantage to the farm, the ground being in the neighbour¬ 
hood of London. The only other point was as to the application of the 
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883. In the view H s Lordship took of the 
case it was unnecessary to consider what the meaning of the Act was ; 
but the Act appeared to go a long way towards getting rid of the old 
common law doctrine of waste, and to be quite consistent with the two 
authorities above referred to. His Lordsmp felt inclined to hold that 
these houses were “ improvements ” within the Act—that is to say, 
improvements for which the tenant could get compensation ; but he did 
not think it necessary to go further than that. His Lord-hip c mid not 
find a single point on which the plaintiffs succeeded, and therefore there 
must be judgment for the defendant with costs. 
The Queen and Horticulture.— The gold medal of the Royal 
Botanical and Horticultural Society of Manchester was awarded to 
Her Majesty the Queen for her exhibition of fruit at the recent show 
in this city. Mr. Bruce Findlay, the Secretary of the Society, proceeded 
to Windsor Castle and prtsented the gold medal. In acknowledg¬ 
ment, Mr. Findlay has received the following letter :—“ Windsor 
Castle, December 16th, 1891. Sir,—I am commanded by the Queen to 
convey to the members of the Royal Botanical and Horticultural Society 
of Manchester the expression of Her Majesty’s thanks for the gold 
medal which the Society has awarded to her for the fruit, exhibited by 
Her Majesty on the occasion of the last exhibition there, and to express 
Her Majesty’s satisfaction that the Apples and Pears sent from the 
Royal gardens should have been so highly approved of by the Society. 
—Believe me, yours faithfully, J. C. Cowell. Bruce Findlay, Esq. 
Secretary of the Royal Botanical and Horticultural Society of Man, 
Chester.” 
- The weather in the Metropolitan district during the 
past few days has been very winterly, and keen frosts, accompanied by 
dense fogs, have been the rule. Temperatures as low as 14°, Fahr,, have 
been registered in many places, and on several days the trees and 
shrubs have been rendered extremely beauiiful by the abundant hoar 
frost lining every twig. 
