350 THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION, February 24,1857. 
the smaller in size and quantity the better. Then 
strew a little sand and powdered stone over the surface, 
just enough to cover and settle the roots. This being 
done, the whole is to receive a liberal watering from a 
very fine-rosed watering-pot, and left for a short time to 
settle. Place the pot in a saucer, the top of which is to 
be below the level of the top of the first layer of stone 
in the pot. This saucer is to be kept full of water, 
with a bell-glass turned over the pot, and to rest in the 
saucer of water. Place the whole in a warm green¬ 
house or stove, and by keeping the saucer filled with 
water success may be relied upon. Similar directions 
may be followed for cultivating this Fern upon a larger 
scale. Be careful always to keep the atmosphere moist 
and warm, which moisture will be secured by keeping 
the pan full of water. This Fern may be increased by 
division, although very shy of this process, and also by 
its seed, or fructification, which is, perhaps, the best, 
although this Fern is very delicate and tender in a 
young state. 
We have had many applications for the particulars 
of a recent decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench 
relative to the right of a clergyman, and of his 
executors after his decease, to remove a hothouse erected 
by him in the rectory garden during his incumbency. 
We were unwilling either to publish this decision, or to 
make any comment upon it, until we had not ouly ob¬ 
tained a report of the case from a legal authority, but 
had communicated with some of the professional gen¬ 
tlemen engaged in the suit. This care we thought 
necessary, because any mistake might mislead some of 
our readers into unwarranted litigation. 
Having obtained the authorities an<J information we 
required, we may epitomise the effect of the decision 
thus:— 
The executors of a deceased rector may remove hot¬ 
houses erected by such rector in the rectory garden, and 
entirely detached from the rectory house. Such hot¬ 
houses are not necessary for the enjoyment of the rectory, 
but are only a matter of luxury and ornament, which the 
deceased rector might have pulled down during his life. 
We publish the following full particulars from The 
Weehly Reporter :— 
MARTIN AND ANOTHER, EXECUTORS OF 
MATTHEWS v. ROE. 
This was a special case, stated without pleadings, for the 
opinion of this Court. The facts were, that the Rev. J. J. 
Matthews, being incumbent of Melbury Osmond, in Dorset¬ 
shire, had during his lifetime erected in the rectory garden, 
on a spot entirely detached from the parsonage house, two 
hothouses, respectively 52 and 47 ft. in length, by 14 in 
width, consisting of low brick walls, upon which mortar was 
spread; imbedded into this mortar were wooden frames and 
glass work, the glass work sliding up and down upon 
pulleys and not fixed. The plaintiffs, his executors after his 
death, removed this frame and glass work; took it from 
the mortar on which it was placed, doing no damage 
thereby except what was unavoidable to the mortar. The 
defendant, who has succeeded as rector, afterwards took the 
materials from the possession of the plaintiffs, claiming 
them as belonging to him as such rector; and the question 
for the Court was simply, and without any question as to 
time and manner and form of removal by the plaintiffs, 
which of the two parties was entitled to the property and 
the materials so removed. 
Barstow, for the plaintiffs.—These hothouses were proved 
to be no part of the rectory house, hut they were at some 
distance off. The incumbent of a rectory is not like a 
tenant for life, for the fee simple is in abeyance, and the 
late rector could have at any time removed these erections 
without being guilty of waste: Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 
588. If the property became the defendant’s at the decease 
of the preceding rector, he must repair it during his 
incumbency, and transmit it to his successor in good repair; 
but can it be said that such an erection as a hothouse, which 
is simply for the purpose of luxury, was a thing that the 
successor was bound to take, and be liable in an action for 
not repairing? Wise v. Metcalfe, 10 B. & C. 299, is an 
authority for saying that this obligation only extends to 
what is useful. As to the brickwork, that became a part of 
the rectory, and the plaintiffs would be liable in an action 
for dilapidations for any injury done in removing the hot¬ 
houses. The case finds that no damage was done, which 
must mean, no more damage than could be helped. The 
real question is, whether the successor could be compelled 
to keep this structure in repair: it is submitted he could 
not, because it was an erection for the convenience of the 
then incumbent, and not for the advantage of the ecclesi¬ 
astical property. (Culling v. Tttfnell, B, N. P. 34; Wans- 
brough v. Maton , 4 A. & E. 884; Buckland v. Butterfield, 
2 B. & B. 54; Grymes v. Boweren, 6 Bing. 437, were referred 
to and distinguished.) 
Petersdorff, for the defendant.—This was a permanent 
building fixed to the ground ; the wall clearly passed with 
the rectory, and the frame work of the hothouses was so 
fixed in the wall that it could not be taken away without 
altexing the whole structure. PnmA facie this was a 
building beneficial to the rectory, and which passes to the 
incumbent. [Coleridge, J.—If you can claim this building 
you would be bound to transmit it in proper repair to your 
successor, and therefore it would become liable to the 
question of dilapidations.] It cannot be denied that if the 
present rector claims the building he must repair it, or be 
liable for neglect in an action for dilapidations. All the 
cases which have been decided between tenants for life and 
remainder men apply here. [Lord Campbell. —They are 
material, but not conclusive.] Next, does the taking the 
buildings subject the present incumbent to any unreasonable 
incumbrance ? The case does not find that it would, and 
therefore it cannot be presumed that the building would 
not be advantageous to the ecclesiastical property. 
Barstow, in reply.—This erection might perhaps be a 
fixture as between tenant for life and remainder men, but 
here the late and present incumbent are in the condition of 
successive tenants for life, upon each of whom duties are 
imposed. Cur. ad. vult. 
Lord Campbell, C. J. (Jan. 24), delivered the judgment 
of the Court. His Lordship, after stating the facts, said— 
In considering this question, we treat the removal by the 
plaintiffs as having been in fact effected without injury to 
the freehold. In all cases of this kind injury to the free¬ 
hold must be spoken of with less than legal strictness. A 
screw or nail can scarcely be drawn without some injury, 
and when all the harm done is that which is unavoidable to 
the mortar laid on the brick walls, this is so trifling, that 
the law, which is reasonable, will regard it as none. Upon 
any other principle, the criterion of injury to the freehold 
w'ould be idle. We have found no decision or authority in 
any text-book precisely governing this case; and we consider 
it, therefore, on a principle. In the first place, it seems 
clear that had the testator, in his life time, done what the 
plaintiffs have done since his death, the defendant would 
not have a claim for dilapidations. The character of the 
building would have justified the incumbent in the removal 
of the whole of it, only he must have restored the garden 
to its former condition if in the removal he had occasioned 
any injury to it amounting to waste; for the duties of the 
present and the right of the succeeding incumbent as such 
are clear. As to a matter of needless expense or luxury or 
ornament by which the present incumbent has gratified his 
own taste, he is not only not bound, but he ought not to 
