John Thomas Homer Scutt 1828-1886

[Wareham. The case of Egginton v. Scutt, submitted to arbitration, was fully gone into at the Town Hall, on Friday and Saturday, before an arbitrator. The plaintiff in this case is Mrs. Sarah Charlotte Elizabeth Egginton, wife of Mr. John Lloyd Egginton, of Cirencester, and the defendant is John Thomas Homer Scutt, corn and seed merchant of Blandford, and who until recently carried on business as a farmer at Bere Regis. Plaintiff's claim was for balance of half-year's rent due at Michaelmas 1883 £119 12s 3d; damages for alleged overcropping and bad farming £597 10s; for loss of manure of corn crops £114 10s: for selling off the produce of three acres of clover cut twice £26; for leaving 104 acres foul £150; for 44 acres left to grass, foul £44; neglecting to repair buildings, gates, fences, &c, £10; total claim £1,067 12s 3d. Against this the defendant had entered a counter claim (in which he denied owing the balance of £119 12s 3d) as follows: For money paid for seed sown, as agreed £41 6s 3d; valuation of tillages, labour, Ac, thereon, as agreed £62 13s 5d; sowing down permanent pasture £15; straw and vetch haulm left on the premises £35 3s 6d; total £157 3s. 2d. Defendant also denied the charge of bad farming. The action, which was brought in June 1884, came on for hearing at the last assizes at Dorchester, and was then referred by the learned Judge, by the consent of the parties, to the arbitration of Mr.W.W. Ravenhill, barrister-at-law, before whom the case was commenced on Friday. Mr. Bullen (instructed by Messrs. T. White & Son of London) was for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. W. Mathews (instructed by Mr. Brennand of Blandford) was counsel for the defendant. Mr. Bullen said it was agreed when the case was at Dorchester that the question of custom should not be gone into, and the question before the arbitrator that day was whether the defendant had cultivated the land reasonably and properly, according to the laws of good husbandry, and if he had not, to what damage was the plaintiff entitled. Mr. Mathews said he did not dispute that, but he would like to call the attention of the arbitrator to the fact that at Dorchester the plaintiff abandoned the heads of claim numbered from three to seven, and since the foundation of all that arose out of defendant's alleged departure from farming according to the custom of the country, he should submit with regard to those heads of claim that they were not open at that hearing. He submitted that under the terms of reference the plaintiff in effect abandoned the claims under those several heads, and the heads of claim left open for consideration were the Ist, 2nd, and 8th paragraphs of the statement of claim, in regard to which none arose from the question of custom. Mr. Bullen said the only thing withdrawn was as to whether or not there existed such a custom. They did not abandon the contention as to whether defendant farmed according to the custom or not. The arbitrator said if the case was stopped, the parties would be put to considerable more expense. If there was any doubtful submission, he would take the evidence and separate the particular headings in his finding, and decide whether right or wrong. He would take notice of the objection. Mr. Bullen, continuing, paid there was, as far as he knew, no question as to title or as to terms of tenancy. Defendant had for years held various parcels of land under the plaintiff, and there was an agreement of the 22nd June 1864, in which the defendant agreed "to farm and manage all the premises in good order and good condition." The first item of the claim was for balance of rent. Mr. Mathews: The amount of rent is disputed. Mr. Bullen said he understood the defendant claimed some reduction, but he should prove that the reduction made by the plaintiff owing to bad times had been for specific times. So far as the other parts of the claim went, they referred entirely to damage arising from bad farming, or acts performed in contravention to good farming. This would be proved by gentlemen who were experts in the matter, who would, he believed, satisfy the arbitrator that the claim was a fair one, and only what a landlady had a right to expect, if entitled to damages. He then called Mr. William Trinder of Cirencester, who said he had been agent for the plaintiff for the Dorset estate since 1881. The defendant rented 452a, 2r. 10p., at £755 for the whole, plus the tithes. In December 1881, witness, by plaintiff's instructions, made a reduction in the rent of £120 for the year; and in November 1882, a further reduction on the half-year of £60. Defendant was informed of this abatement at the audit in June 1883. In the following December, defendant paid him £290 on account, being allowed £1 3s for repairs, and £5 14s 9d for small bills, leaving a balance due of £119 12s 3d to the plaintiff. Defendant at that time asked for a further sum for grass seeds, and refused to go to a reference generally. He also claimed £60 abatement of rent, which witness said he had no instructions to allow. Defendant had given notice that he should quit the farm at Michaelmas 1883. In October 1883, defendant had a sale on the farm of hay and straw, the sale being announced of a quantity of good old clover hay and barley and oat straw. Defendant remained after Michaelmas for the purpose of consuming the hay and straw. Witness could not let the farm till last Michaelmas, except about 140 acres. He had had to repair gates and fences since. Cross-examined by Mr. Mathews: Witness succeeded Mr. Rodwell, who was plaintiff's agent for 25 years. He had no previous experience of Dorset land, but went over the estate two or three times a year since 1881. Mr. Rodwell was not present as a witness. Did not know to what sum the land was assessed. The abatements down to that day had been allowed to all the tenants. In a letter in December 1882, the defendant intimated his intention of quitting the next Michaelmas. A reply to that letter admitted £15 of defendant's counter-claim for sowing to pasture a piece of land. Mr. Bullen said that as to defendant's counter-claim the item of £41 6s 3d was admitted, and the three items of £62 13s 5d, £15 and £33 5s 6d were admitted to be subject to valuation. Cross-examination continued: Defendant wanted his rental reduced, to which plaintiff refused to accede, and defendant said he must give up the farm unless he was granted a permanent reduction of 20 per cent, on the rent. Defendant wrote on 18th October 1883, giving particulars of his claims. From November 1882, to October 1883, witness made no complaint, and plaintiff's claim was first made in December 1883, after the defendant's. Westfield. of 139 acres, was let to Mr. Little, in October 1883 at £175. Had no recollection of defendant offering £450 rent for the remainder of the land with the buildings after that. In February 1884, a valuer was sent to look over the land. The grass of the land was sold in 1884 for £100 to a Mr. Cobb. Mr. Homer's tender to cultivate the land was not accepted, but terms were come to with Mr. Edison of Dorchester. Plaintiff had another large farm in the neighbourhood on hand. Mr. James Rawlence of the firm of Rawlence & Squarey, land agents of Salisbury, said he went on the land on 26th February 1884, and found some of the land very foul. Some portions were cross-cropped and some over-cropped. There was no manure or a very small portion on the farm. The straw and hay he understood had been sold and carried off the farm, and he saw no means how it was to be kept in cultivation. In 1882 266 acres were cropped to corn, pulse, and seeds; in 1883 229 acres were cropped to the same; the quantity over cropped being 199 acres. He reckoned £407 10s damages for this, at the rate of 50s an acre. For the hay and straw being sold off and leaving no manure £114 10s; two crops of hay sold off clover, 13 acres £20; extra foulness of 104 acres of land £156; foul state of 44 acres sown to grass in 1883 £44; half cost of labour for repairs, &c, £10: total £948. Cross-examined: He did not go over the farm buildings, and did not go into the yard, but saw a small quantity of manure there. Had made his calculations as to excessive over-cropping on the custom of the country. He went by good and bad farming. He did not know that the "three- field" system prevailed in that neighbourhood. He was on the land nearly the whole day. He made allowance for growth of couch in the intervening months after the mild winter, but he took it there was little appreciable difference. He constantly found the foulness of land a dispute between the out-going tenant and the landlord, and in his experience it was frequently a subject of claim. Taking the time which had intervened and all the circumstances into consideration the farm, in his opinion, was left in a worse condition than farms generally were. In further examination the witness got rather muddled as to the amount of foul land, and in one set of three fields of 47 acres the whole put the foul land at 48 acres! He believed he went over each of these three fields. He adhered to his figures that 104 acres of the total of 125 he visited were foul. He had heard that all this land had formerly consisted of common fields. Reexamined: £2,800 might be a large or small sum to spend on land for four years, according to what was taken out of it. James Davis, estate carpenter to Mrs. Eggington, said that he went over the farm with the last witness. In the following May (1884) he went over it again with Mr. Symonds, pointing out the various fields and giving information with another man named Bullock. In his opinion a good deal of the land was foul. He remembered seeing some stacks of barley and oat straw formerly on the farm which were sold. This witness was not cross-examined. Mr. Daniel Symonds, land agent and surveyor of Dorchester, said he went over the land in question on the 26th May, 1884. Some portions were very bad and some very passible. He calculated the damage to the landlord as follows: According to the information received of the cropping in 1882 and 1883, the total acreage of arable was 295 acres, out of which 266 had been sown to corn and pulse, and in 1883 329; and he considered this 199 acres more than ought to be so cultivated, and put the damage at £497 10s. In 1883 there were 40 acres sowed to trifolium and vetches, which he considered ought to be sowed to turnips, damage £100; 229 acres, he took of corn had been grown on the farm in the last year, and straw sold and loss of manure, damage £114 10s ; 13 acres of clover land mowed twice and hay removed, damage £l per acre; land more than ordinarily foul, damage £156; of the land sown to seed, 44 acres were unclean, and he put the damage at £44; he put the half-cost of repairs to buildings, fences &c. £10.Cross-examined: He did not think a mild winter would affect the condition of the farm much, and the distance of time would not affect his opinion. He calculated on the on the four-field system, which prevailed there as far as he knew. He did not know that the three-field system prevailed at all in the neighbourhood. He did not know the system of quit as you enter. It might or might not exist. He supposed if there had been an incoming tenant, he would have begun cleaning the land, and witness would have seen it in a different state. Re-examined: He did not think the three-field system would be suitable for light land, to farm it profitably. This was the whole of the evidence adduced on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. Mathews then addressed the arbitrator on behalf of the defendant. The land in question had, he said, formerly been common fields, being enclosed about the years 1842 or 1843, from which time, and before, defendant had lived upon the land, formerly assisting his father, who held land under plaintiff's predecessor. In 1851, defendant became a tenant under the plaintiff, having a holding of 21 acres, which was increased from time to time until 1873, when Westfield was the last addition. Early history held it that Mr. Drax, formerly M.P. for Wareham, had whether for electioneering purposes or what he did not know let out this land to tenants of a class who could not afford to cultivate it, and consequently it became poverty stricken to a degree. Defendant had done everything he could to improve the condition of the land. The rental had always been extremely high, and up to taking Westfield defendant had paid £560 for land the gross estimated rental of which was £400, and gave an additional £195 for Westfield. Mr. Rodwell was for 25 years agent to the plaintiff and the land was under his constant supervision, but there was never anything in the nature of a complaint, nor was there from Mr. Trinder between 1881 and 1833. Under the general depression defendant found he could not go on paying such excessive rent, and as the reduction asked for was not acceded, a notice was given at Michaelmas, and three months after Mr. Scutt sent in a claim for materials spent and left on the land, there being then nothing at all against him in the nature of a complaint or claim. He would point out the pressure, or the inducement, held out to defendant to remain on if he would, whilst as a matter of fact the greater part of the present claim was in respect to the year 1882, and there had been no complaint as to selling off or of the general appearance of the land. Time and money were expended for the purpose of keeping the farm on, and the defendant after Westfield was let, offered £450 a year for the rest of the farm, and taking into consideration the reduction made, there would be only a loss of £25 a year to the present plaintiff. Here was proof of the conduct of a good husbandman, for defendant had every intention of keeping on the farm, and actually tendered to keep it on after the notice, and anything contrary to good husbandry would have been altogether opposed to his own interests. Nothing could speak stronger than this fact as to the good conduct and intentions of the defendant. Mr. Scutt left, yet no claim was made. There were surveyors on both sides, and there was appreciably no difference between the evidence of the two in the plaintiff's case. Mr. Rawlence had driven through a portion of the land, but his evidence wanted detail to give weight, detail to give weight, whilst Mr. Symonds's information, upon which his calculations were based, was not even derived first hand, and however skilfully those calculations were based, they were formed on shadowy material, and dealt with things in the rough rather than in detail. It came to a question of good or bad husbandry, and if he established the fact that there had been good husbandry the greater heads of the claims for damages would disappear. He should show that there had been no irregular system since the enclosure but good practice. Taking into consideration the foul state of the land when entered on, the high rental, and the expenditure on it, he thought the claim exceedingly unjust. If a tenant bad taken the farm when defendant went out they would have heard nothing of plaintiff's claim. What had been proved? He had heard no evidence of damage of any description to the plaintiff, only it had been estimated that from 1883 to 1885 the farm was untenanted. But a part of the farm, about 140 acres, was let within a fortnight of defendant's leaving at a good rent. Here was a practical test. During the defendant's tenancy, Mr. Homer steam-cultivated the land at 15s an acre, and after defendant had left he tendered to plaintiff's agent to do it at 12s an acre. He should prove that the alleged foulness of the land did not exist he didn't say that the surveyors visions were distorted by going on a certain side and he thought he should be able to prove that the selling off of hay and straw was done year after year, and was being done by other tenants of the plaintiff; and with regard to the matters made so much of, the landlady and her agents were cognisant of everything taking place on the farms, and he thought that the best record of good husbandry on the part of the defendant was the pressure brought to bear upon in seeking to induce him to remain upon the farm which he had done so much to improve. The learned counsel then called the defendant. Mr. John Thomas Homer Scutt said he was a corn and seed merchant at Blandford, and up to 1853 carried on farming at Bere Regis, where he helped his father in farming before 1851, when he took land himself, holding it under Mr. Drax. There was no system pursued, except three crops in succession. Witness went on increasing his holding until 1873, when he took Westfield, in which year it was twice, cultivated and cleaned, it being in a very bad condition. He paid £80 13s 6d valuation for Westfield, and on going out £121. He spent a large amount, about £2,838, in corn, cake, and manure, on the farm between 1879 and 1883. There was nothing the matter with the land when he left, provided it had been taken on when he went out. He offered Mr. Trinder £450 a year for the rest of the land after Westfield was left. He kept down as much land as he could to grass, and the last two years he had good crops of corn. There was a quantity of turnips and grass in Westfield. He had never taken more than two straw crops in succession. He growed in 1883, 49 acres of wheat, 80 of oats, and 134 of barley and the remaining third was pulse crops, turnips, and grass. This was not overcropping, considering the quantity of land he had down to grass, his number of stock, and the money it cost him. He remained on the farm to thresh his corn and he was then consuming straw. He left 25th March. He had sold off the straw and hay for 30 years, and in his opinion had a right to do so. When he went over the land with Mr. Rawlence the foulness had increased, but there was not the quantity foul as stated. Mr. Rawlence was on the farm no more than one hour and a half. Besides the manure seen by Mr. Rawlence there was a quantity in three other yards. Witness paid £580 rent before he took Westfield. In 1883 he sowed to white straw crops 115 acres. He did offer Mr. Tremmer to accept a reference, except wlth regard to the dilapidations. As other witnesses could not attend on the following day, their evidence was now taken, the cross-examination of the defendant standing over. Mr. George Wood Homer, of Athelhampton Hall, next gave evidence. He occupied several farms. He knew both of the four and three-field systems being applied to such land, and no roots came into the system of three-field. The tenant would be justified in selling hay if no agreement existed to the contrary, and if he was spending a deal of money on the land it would be good farming to sell. He should think with Mr. Scutt's considerable expenditure he would be quite justified in taking two-thirds to white straw crops, and in selling off straw and hay. He knew the land. If there was convenience in buildings, a large quantity of straw might profitably be consumed on a farm. The time from defendant's leaving would make an enormous difference, especially on light land. The land ought to be cleaned in the autumn following a corncrop. In a mild winter the couch would spread very rapidly. If a man found stubble he could leave stubble, and he considered with regard to foul land that, in the absence of agreement, on the four-field system, a man would leave one-fourth foul. He considered that on payment of such a rent a man ought to be allowed to farm as he liked. (Laughter.) He tendered in June 1884, to cultivate the land for 12s. an acre. He had 12s an acre. He had never seen a farm given up all clean and he had never known a claim paid for leaving land in a foul condition. Cross-examined: His tender at 12s was to cultivate twice in a place. If a man was under an agreement to consume the hay and straw, of course he was bound to do it. Mr. Thomas Alner Homer, retired farmer, said he had had great experience in farming. He knew Mr. Scutt's farm; it was always a "couchy" country. It had always been under a three-field system, and that had been good husbandry. He farmed in Bere Regis five years, and sold off straw and hay which he did not want to consume, which was done generally. He farmed in Westfield himself. Mr. Charles Besent, farmer, of Bere Regis, and well acquainted with the parish, said he knew the lands prior to their enclosure. The system of cultivation since its enclosure had not been a very particular one, but he understood that the tenants did pretty much as they liked so as to farm well and pay their rent. There had been great difficulty in the last few seasons in keeping land clean. He had known two straw crops taken succession; had done it himself, and was a tenant of Mrs. Egginton. He should expect about a fourth to be in a foul condition on a farm like Mr. Scutt's. He believed the latter's farming to be good. He had no hesitation in saying the greater part of the land was in a better; condition when Mr. Scutt left it than when he took. Cross-examined: His was arable land. He should not, he thought, himself sell off the straw of two successive crops. He held some land under lease which he cultivated on the four-field system. He sometimes sowed barley after wheat. The case was then adjourned till the following morning. The arbitration was resumed at half-past nine on Saturday morning. The first witness called was Mr. H. C. Galton, overseer of Bere Regis, to produce the rate book. Mr. Bullen objected to the assessment being put in, as he contended it was not evidence on the issue! He further objected on the ground that the rate was no evidence of the value of property as between landlord and tenant. The arbitrator noted the objection. Mr. Henry C. Galton produced the rate books for 1883 and 1884, the valuation of which was made in May 1882. The gross estimated rental of the 454a. 3r. 27p. of land held by Mr. Scutt was £498 13s 7d, and the rateable value £145 19s 10d. The extent of the Mill land was 33 perches, gross estimated rental £70, and rateable value £56. On the rate of 9th Oct., 1883, 139a. 3r. 2p. were transferred to Mr. Little's name, leaving 315 a. 25p., the gross estimated rental of which was £358 13s 7d, and the rateable value £312 19s 10d. The defendant was then cross-examined by Mr. Bullen on his previous day's evidence. Witness said he had been a corn and seed merchant about 30 years. He seeded down vetches on the farm, and did not consider this an exhausting exhausting crop. His father held about 48 acres of Eastfield before he did. Witness took this on in 1872 or thereabout. Did not remember what vetches he had in 1881. He might have had 260 acres sown to corn in 1883, in which year he should think he had about one-third not to corn. Under the four-field system he would have had about one half in corn each year._ He did not "sweat" the land to its uttermost during the last two years of his tenancy. He thought of leaving about five or six years before, but did not then pursue the same course, but might have grown more corn. He did not know of the agreement of 1864 nor was it read to him. He had a right as a good husbandman to take two successive straw crops. He remembered his father s handwriting, and swore it was not his signature in the book produced. William Scutt, of Filliele, was not related to witness's father. Witness sold some of the hay and straw. It might have realised £287 10s 6d but he didn't remember. This would be for the whole farm. Mr Besant bought a rick for £20, and Mr. Tozer one for £15. He should think he had about 200 head of stock in 1883 Between Sept 1883, and March 1884, he had on the farm whilst staying on there, six horses, four cows, and some pigs. He spent on the land in 1882 about £450, and close on £500 in 1883, not including seed. The manure in his yards had been made since Michaelmas. During the last year he might have been taking a little more straw than if he had been going to stay on. Mr. Rawlence was not on the farm from 12 to 3.30. Re-examined: In 1880 he had no wheat and very little lentils. In 1881 he had less than the proper proportion. He had never before finally determined to give up the farm. It was not fair to say he exhausted the land because he was leaving, as he only knew he was going in September 1883. He consumed all the hay and straw he could on the farm, but there was very little pasture, and no building accommodation for stock. By the Arbitrator: He should say that tares and vetches would not exhaust the land more than half of what white straw crops would, and he should say the same of pease. Mr. William Jesty, farming at Bere, said the defendant's land was cultivated very highly. Cross-examined: Mr. Scutt always made a difference in crops every year. He believed he sowed more trifolium, vetches, and pease, in the last two years or so than before. Re-examined: The land was well fed, and he should think no improper quantity of anything was grown. By the Arbitrator: As between man and man he shouldn't think Mr. Scut ought to pay anything for over-cropping. He should not have expected as the land was well fed, and he could have made the land pay if taken after harvest. He should not have expected compensation if the rent was reasonable, say £1 an acre, and should at that rent have expected nothing for overcropping or cleaning. Mr. Henry Tozer, a tenant of Mrs. Ergington's, farming at Bere, said defendant's land adjoined his. He thought it had been in a good state of cultivation on the whole, but had varied, but to no greater extent than other farms. He thought the taking of two straw crops quite proper. Cross-examined; It had been his habit to cultivate as soon as possible after harvest. He took his farm in 1874. and only found a rick of meadow hay on it. Mr. Henry Richards, appraiser and farmer, of Chilbridge Farm, Wimborne, gave evidence as to making a valuation on all the land, except that let to Mr. Little at Michaelmas 1883. He then valued the tillages at £62 15s 5d. £15 was in his opinion, a reasonable charge for sowing down 10 acres to best pasture. Mr. Bullen said he would accept Mr. Richards's valuation as to the tillages and pasture. Witness continuing, said he knew Mr. Scutt's farm well, and thought Mr. Scutt was about the best farmer in Bere Regis. It was his own practice to take two straw crops in succession after two seasons of different treatment. It was scarcely fair to form an opinion of land as left after five months neglect, but a practised man would be able to judge in a measure. He saw the crops growing on Mr. Scutt's land and on the land adjoining, and Scutt's were superior. There was no common system formerly adopted with regard to the lands. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, he thought a tenant had the right to do as he liked with the straw aud hay. Land must be very foul to cost 30s an acre for cleansing. The rent paid by Mr. Scutt was stiff. He was surprised to hear Mr. Scutt's offer of £450 was rejected. Cross-examined: He himself consumed his hay and straw on his farms and spent £1,000 a year on feeding. He had had more couch within the last two years than for the last 30. He as a rule, cultivated directly after harvest. He had noticed no falling off in Mr. Scntt's land within the last two years. By the Arbitrator: Defendant would be justified in selling straw and hay he couldn't consume, unless restricted by lease or agreement, especially considering defendant had to recoup himself for a bad entry. Mr. George Edward Richards, valuer and auctioneer, gave evidence as to having valued the vetches, haulm, and straw, left on the farm at £35. He agreed with his father's evidence. Couch grew very rapidly between the time of harvest and the spring. He should consider it no contravention of good farming on a farm like this to sell hay and straw where the defendant entered it bare, and there was no specific agreement to the contrary. Mr. John Homer Scutt, son of the defendant, proved keeping the books, and extracted the amount expended on the farm between 1879 and 1881 to be £2,831. In 1878, £600 was spent. A good quantity of swedes were grown on the farm. Mr. Alfred Scutt, another son of the defendant, proved extracting items from the accounts for the valuation. In his opinion the land had been properly cultivated by his by his father. Mr. Samuel Cobb, farmer of Bere Regis, said he had been a tenant of Mrs. Eggington's for about 40 years. In his opinion Mr. Scutt's cultivation of the land had been very good, as no-one in the neighbourhood grew better crops. Ho bought some grass on the farm in 1884 for £100, and it was good. He offered £95 this year for the hay off it, which was not accepted. There was nothing wrong, farming as defendant farmed, in taking two straw crops. The hay and straw were sold off in the neighbourhood. Crossexamined: The hay he bought for £100, came off 29 acre and included the after feed. Mr. Walter White, farmer, Burton, Wool, and formerly a tenant of Mrs. Eggington, said it was generally recognised as good husbandry, after taking nothing from the land for two years, to take two straw crops in snccession. It was general to sell the hay and straw off the land. Crossexamined: The spring of 1879 was a very bad one for cleaning land. Charles Standfield, shepherd, formerly in the employ of the defendant, said that a great deal of the land was in a foul condition when defendant entered it. Nothing was very wrong in it when defendant left. The peas were horse feed twice, and this could not be done with very foul land. A fair average number of sheep was kept. In 1883 there were about 40 acres of swedes, and before that there had been more roots. The land was left in fair condition. Cross-examined: In 1883 there were about 200 fat sheep and about 150 lambs on the farm. Mr. Charles Bascombe, farmer and tenant of the plaintiff at Bere Regis, agreed with the evidence of the farmers who had preceded him as to the straw crops and selling off. John Barnes, labourer, long in the employ of Mr. Scutt, spoke as to the land being well cultivated, and in much the same way as other farmers in the neighbourhood. There was a heavy crop of trefolium in 1883, and the crops produced were better than those around. The land was left better than it was entered on. Cross-examined: All the crops in the last year were good, except the peas which were blighted. John Barlow, in the employ of Mr. Eddison, steam engine proprietor, of Dorchester, gave evidence as to going on the farm in March and April 1883, and cultivating, The land was in good working order and there was no trouble in getting the engine through it. The condition of Mr. Scutt's farm was "not much worse than some of them." (Laughter.) Some of it was a little dirty, but there was no unusual proportion of foulness. This concluded the evidence for the defence. The Arbitrator then asked Mr. Rawlence and Mr. Richards what they thought was the proper proportion of stock which should have been kept on a farm like this. Mr. Rawlence said, in his opinion, there should be about 500 breeding ewes with lambs; it was not a place to keep more than three or four cows; and he should think that from 10 to 20 young beasts should be kept during the winter to consume the straw; there ought to be a pair of horses for 60 acres; and four or five breedings sows with young pigs. Mr. Mathews said that Mr. Scutt had kept 16 horses on the farm. Mr. Richards agreed with Mr. Rawlence's estimate, but said that with regard to the beasts a question for consideration was as to the accommodation afforded for stock in the winter. This concluded the case.] [J T H S - 59yr.]