——
244
.
Agriculture.
Sect.
Custom
where the land
2.
time
of
lies
which has subsisted
for a reasonable length of
(u).
Country.
How
proved.
508. The custom of the country is the custom prevalent throughout the district, and is not proved by showing that it is the usage of a particular estate or of the property of a particular individual, however large and such usage will not be imported into the terms of a tenancy where it is not shown that the tenant was aware of it (v). The custom is to be collected, not from what witnesses say they think the custom is, but from what is publicly done throughout the district (a). It must be proved by the party alleging it; thus a custom to retain part of the holding or to take way-going crops etc., must be proved by the tenant and in the absence of proof of such custom the tenant must give up possession of land and crops at the termination of the tenancy {h).
509. Evidence showing that a holding has been managed in accordance with the custom of the country is proof that it has been treated in a good and husbandlike manner (c). Sub-Sect.
2.
Applicability,
510. A custom of the country, when once proved, is applicable to every agricultural tenancy in the district however created, whether by parol or by writing, unless excluded by the terms of the agreement itself {d). It is a contract which the law raises in the absence of ^ny particular contract between the parties {e) Sub- Sect. Reasonable-
3.
Reasonableness,
A custom of the country must be reasonable, otherwise it void (/) and the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the ciigtom is a question of law for the Court, and not of fact for the jury ig). The following customs have been expressly held to be reasonable that the tenant should have the way-going crop after the expiration 511.
'^^
S^nofl^w" ion o aw.
different parts of the same county. Thus there is a great body of agricultural customs of which it is impossible to give an exhaustive or exact list, as no authority exists to determine generally what is the custom in each district, and new customs arise from time to time as the mode of agriculture changes. It is beyond the scope of this work to detail all the customs that have been ascertained to exist, but a comprehensive list of the more important customs prevailing in the different counties will be found in Brooke Little's Agricultural Holdings, pp. 210 Bund's Agricultural Holdings, 3rd ed. 231 pp. 106—153 ; Dixon's Law of the Farm, 6th ed. pp. 710—747. {u) Legh V. Heiuitt (1803), 4 East, 154; Dalby v. Hirst (1819), 1 Br. & B. 224 Tucker v. Linger (1882), 21 Ch. D. 18; (1883j 8 App. Gas. 508; Dashwood y. Magniac, [1891] 3 Ch. at p. 324. (v) Womersley v. Bally (1857), 26 L. J. (ex.) 219. (a) Tucker v. Linger, supra, per Jessel, M.E. (b) Caldecotty. Smyfhies (1837), 7 0. & P. 808. (c) Legh v. Hewitt, supra, per Lord Ellenborough. (d) Wilkins v. Wood (1848), 17 L. J. (q. b.) 319; Wigglesworth v. Dallison Senior v. Armytage (1816), Holt, N. P. 0. 197, as explained (1779), 1 Doug. 200 in Hiitton v. Warren (1836), 1 M. & W. 466.
—
.
(e)
Boraston
v.
Green (1812), 16 East, 71.
(/) Bradburn v. Foley (1878), 3 0. P. D. 129. {g) Tyson v. Smith (1838), 9 A. & E. 406, at p. 421.
