ain in possession, and the priest expended 400 l. in buildings, on
the faith that he would not be disturbed. A dispute subsequently arose
about trespass, and the fences on the boundary between the priest's
farm and some land in the possession of the landlord. The landlord
served notice to quit, and brought an ejectment. After some delay
judgment was given in his favour, subject to an application to the
Court of Chancery to compel him to fulfil his father's promise of a
lease.'

The Master of the Rolls thus characterised the law which justifies the
robbery of the tenants by unscrupulous and vindictive landlords:--

'Even if the Rev. Dr. O'Fay had no claim except as tenant from year to
year, I have no hesitation in stating that, although in point of law
on the authorities I have referred to, and particularly the case of
Felling _v._ Armitage, the petitioner's suit could not be sustained,
_yet noticing can be more repugnant to the principles of natural
justice than that a landlord should look on at a great expenditure
carried on by a tenant from year to year, without warning the tenant
of his intention to turn him out of possession_. The defendant's offer
to allow Dr. O'Fay to remove the buildings was a mockery. _I have no
jurisdiction to administer equity in the natural sense of that term,
or I should have no difficulty whatever in making a decree against the
defendant._ I am bound to administer an artificial system, established
by the decisions of eminent judges, such as Lord Eldon and Sir William
Grant, and _being so bound, I regret much that I must administer
injustice in this case, and dismiss the petition_, but I shall dismiss
it without costs. _I should be very glad for the sake of justice that
my decision should be reversed by the Court of Appeal._'

Lest it might be supposed that this was the opinion of a single judge,
we find in the Court of Appeal equally strong views stated:--It
was thrown out that it was a case for amicable settlement, but the
respondent's counsel assured the Court that his client 'had resolved
to spend his fortune, if necessary, in resisting the claim of the
Rev. Dr. O'Fay.' Lord Justice Blackburne pronounced this to be a very
irrational determination, although he had to decide that the claim
could not be sustained in law or equity.

Lord Chancellor Napier, in concluding his judgment, said:--

'I think I am not overstepping my duty in suggesting to the
respondent, that, under all the cir