Marketing Agricultural Produce .sx AMONG the numerous attempts Parliament has made during recent years to stimulate British agriculture , one effort has taken the form of legislative intervention to ensure a better system of marketing agricultural produce .sx In the opinion of some critics this is like putting the cart before the horse .sx They agree that what is wanted is more production then they say the marketing could be left to take care of itself .sx How-ever that may be , we have now on the statute book three Acts dealing with the marketing of agricultural produce , viz .sx , the Agricultural Produce ( Grading and Marketing ) Acts , 1928 and 1931 , and the Agricultural Marketing Act , 1931 .sx The two former aim at standardisation and protect certain grade designations by importing into their use a warranty that the foods to which these designations are applied conform to legally defined standards .sx The last-named goes a long way further and provides for the marketing under official regulations of .sx " any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product , and fleeces and the skins of animals .sx " It is , therefore , quite obvious , that the principle of standardisation in vogue for many years first , in regard to milk , then in regard to butter , and still later , in regard to fertilisers and feeding-stuffs is now to be extended to agricultural produce .sx There is this curious distinction , however , to be drawn between past legislation affecting the sale of the commodities named and the new " marketing " legislation that whereas the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts and the Fertilisers and Feeding-Stuffs Acts were avowedly passed to protect the consumer the new grading , marketing , and marketing statutes have as their primary object the helping of the producer .sx That , however , is , by-the-way .sx The substantial fact is that the Legislature has now definitely intervened to control the disposal of farmers' produce :sx and the extent of the powers granted by Parliament can only be appreciated by a careful study of the latest statute the Agricultural Marketing Act , 1931 .sx The basis of this system of state regulation is indicated in the preamble to the Act , which describes the measure as an Act to enable schemes to be made for regulating the marketing of agricultural products ; to confer powers upon boards and other bodies to be constituted in connection with , or acting for purposes connected with , such schemes ; to establish agricultural marketing funds for the purpose of making loans thereout to the boards aforesaid ; and to provide for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid .sx A scheme regulating the marketing of an agricultural product may be submitted by any persons who satisfy the Minister that they are substantially representative of the persons who produce that product in the area to which the scheme is applicable .sx Every such proposed scheme must be published by the Minister and objections must be considered if necessary a local inquiry may be held .sx A scheme , if approved , becomes binding on all producers of the " regulated product " within the area to which the scheme is applied .sx " Approved " involves not merely the approval of the Minister after considering objections and representations :sx it involves submission to the Board of Trade and afterwards to Parliament .sx This having been secured , a " suspensory period " follows , during which a poll is to be taken of " registered producers , " i.e. , of all producers who claim to be registered as such when the scheme is published as having been approved .sx If there is a two-thirds majority in favour of the scheme it then becomes operative subject to this that within a specified time all producers who did not register in time to vote are to be given a chance of registering now before becoming liable to prosecution under s. 6 ( 3 ) , which reads thus :sx " Any producer who sells the regulated product in contravention of the provisions of a scheme made in pursuance of this section shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds or on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds , and in either case to an additional fine not exceeding half the price at which the product was sold :sx provided that the fines imposed on summary conviction for any offence under this sub-section shall not exceed in the aggregate one hundred pounds .sx " Heavy penalties in all conscience !sx Extradition and " Autrefois Convict .sx " A LEGAL point of some interest arose in the extradition proceedings recently concerning one MEMAHEM SEMANON , wanted by the Belgian authorities on a charge of obtaining goods by false pretences in that country .sx In defence , it was stated that , when the accused had recently been tried and convicted for an offence in France , the Belgian charge was taken into consideration by the French court in passing sentence .sx It was alleged that this course was rendered possible by an arrangement between France and Belgium , but the defence , after consultation with a Belgian expert , had not been able to prove the fact .sx The practice of " taking into consideration " other offences when passing sentence on a particular charge is , of course , well established in our courts , and was judicially recognised and regulated in R. v. .sx McLean 1911 1 K.B. 332 .sx The offences must be of the same nature as that for which the sentence is passed , and the court is not bound to accede to the prisoner's request in this behalf if the prosecution does not agree .sx When the sentence has been pronounced on this footing , the plea of " autrefois convict " in respect of the untried offences does not of course strictly lie , but there is at least something in the nature of a " gentleman's agreement " that there should be no further prosecution .sx Mr. FRY accordingly held that the matter urged on the prisoner's behalf was no defence to the request for extradition , but suggested that , if conviction resulted , it might mitigate the sentence .sx In respect generally of pleas of " autrefois convict " or " autrefois acquit " on extradition proceedings two cases are cited in the note to R. v. Roche ( 1775 ) , 1 Leach 134 , to show that an acquittal on a charge of murder in Spain or Portugal would be a complete defence to a charge on the same facts in England , but the report of one of them , R. v. Hutchinson , 3 Keb .sx 785 , is too short to throw light on the subject .sx In R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison , ex parte Stallmann 1912 3 K.B. 424 , the case turned on an article in our extradition treaty with Germany , virtually adopting the principle of the pleas " autrefois acquit " and " autrefois convict .sx " It was then held that extradition proceedings in India , unsuccessful owing to an informality in the course of the proceedings , were no bar to committal under proper proceedings in England .sx A similar provision in the extradition treaty with Holland was considered in R. v. Holloway , ex parte Buddenborg ( 1898 ) , 14 T.L.R. 252 .sx In that case , however , there was the somewhat unusual complication that the prisoner had been tried and sentenced for the offence in Holland , but had then been released and allowed to come to England without serving his sentence .sx In R. v. Aughet ( 1918 ) , 118 L.T. 658 , the prisoner , a Belgian officer , had , in circumstances of great provocation , shot at and wounded a fellow country-man , a private in the Belgian Army .sx He was handed over to the Belgian authori ies , tried by a Belgian court-martial , then sitting at Calais owing to the war , and acquitted .sx On returning to London he was committed for trial on four counts relating to the offence , and LORD DARLING admitted the plea of " autrefois convict " as good on three of them , but not on the fourth , for which he was tried , found guilty , and sentenced .sx On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal the conviction was quashed .sx The matter , however , was governed by a special convention for the time of the war between England and Belgium as to the trial of offences committed by soldiers .sx In the Belgian proceedings the plea of " irresistible impulse " was open to the accused , and he took it and was in fact acquitted on it .sx The argument was raised against the prisoner that this altered the character of the crime , but the court held that , in view of its opinion on the other points , it was not necessary to consider it .sx The point , however , remains of interest .sx Notoriously , in certain countries whose people are of hotter blood than our own , acquittals for murder in the nature of a " crime passionel " are frequent where the prisoner would certainly be convicted in England , though probably respited .sx As another example , if two English subjects went to fight a duel in France and one was killed in the encounter , a French tribunal might deal more gently with the victor than an English judge and jury .sx Landlord and Tenant Notebook .sx Failure to Deliver up .sx That the duty to give vacant possession at the end of the term was contractual , and was implied when not expressed , was settled by Harding v. Crethorne ( 1793 ) , 1 Esp .sx 57 , and Henderson v. Squire ( 1869 ) , 38 L.J.Q.B. 73 .sx The latter case is also an authority for the proposition that the duty is not fulfilled when a sub-lessee remains in possession ; the tenant is liable for the expense that may be occasioned in getting rid of the sub-tenant .sx Older decisions have to some extent defined the scope and nature of the obligation .sx Savage v. Dent ( 1757 ) , 2 Stra .sx 1064 , and Gray v. Bompas ( 1862 ) , 11 C.B. ( N.s. ) 520 , illustrate the principles applied .sx In the one , the tenant of a public-house had moved himself , his family , and his personal effects from the premises , but left some beer in the cellar ; and on the authority of an unreported case relating to hay left in a barn , it was said that he was liable in ejectment .sx In the other , the tenant had evacuated the premises before the notice to quit expired , but retained the key ; he twice lent it to the landlord before the notice expired , to enable prospective tenants to view the place , but forgot to return it when the day ( a Saturday ) came , and two days later the landlord refused to take it .sx At the expiration of the next quarter he sued for rent .sx Keys have often symbolised possession in landlord and tenant cases , and a county court judge acceded to an argument that the notice to quit had been waived ; the decision was , however , reversed without much hesitation .sx Now , in Savage v. Dent and in other older cases the remedy sought by the landlord , when there was no express covenant to deliver up , was ejectment and/or damages for trespass .sx And before Henderson v. Squire this remedy had been applied not only when the tenant himself retained possession by himself or by his goods , but also when sub-tenants refused to move out .sx In Roe v. Wiggs ( 1806 ) , 2 Bos .sx & Pul .sx ( N.R. ) 330 , the defendant , having been given notice to quit , had given similar notices to his under-tenants ; they remained on , and it was held that in an action for ejectment against the tenant costs could be awarded , and the judgment would authorise the sheriff to turn the sub-tenants out .sx In Beauclerc v. Cliff ( 1851 ) , 17 L.T. ( o.s. ) 62 , sub-tenants of part of the premises .sx had refused to leave , and though it appeared that they had been accepted as tenants by the defendant's successor , it was held that an action for trespass and mesne profits could be maintained .sx Then , in Henderson v. Van Cooten ( 1923 ) , 67 SOL .sx J. 228 , a caretaker engaged by the defendant had refused to give up possession when the tenancy was terminated .sx The plaintiff had originally sued both the present defendant and the caretaker in the county court for possession ; judgment had been given for the plaintiff against the tenant , but for the caretaker against the plaintiff .sx ( The county court action for possession is maintainable only against tenants , etc. , holding over ; ejectment is the correct remedy against strangers .sx ) In the High Court action , the landlord , on the authority of Henderson v. Squire , supra , was now able to recover damages representing the expense incurred in turning out the caretaker , and mesne profits .sx