tenements by one admittance and upon payment of one set of fees. I answer that he was not so bound." "In the absence of a special custom, by the general law of copyhold tenure, there must be a separate admittance to each separate tenement, whether the tenements have always been separate, or having been one tenement have become separate. Whether these admittances are made on the same piece of paper or not is immaterial: they must be made in such manner as to enure as separate admittances, so that the court-roll and the copy also may show the title to each." "The next question relates to the steward's fees, and upon that I am of opinion that no customary fee has been established in this manor: the fee of 13s. 4d. is clearly rank it is impossible to suppose such a fee payable in the time of Richard the First, and in modern times it is clear that the fees in this manor have varied and have risen to an excess which must be repressed. But, there being no customary fee to the steward, the tenant must pay a reasonable fee, the amount of which must be settled by the Master." "In Everest v. Glyn (z) the Court held that fees must be governed by what is the proper sum on a quantum meruit, and that the steward upon the admission of one person to several tenements was not entitled to charge the same fees upon the second and subsequent admissions as upon the first admission, because the labour is not so great. At the same time there would be clearly more labour imposed upon the steward where the document contained admissions to twenty different tenements than upon an admission to a single tenement; and it would be unreasonable to say he was entitled to the same fee, and the only rule which can be laid down, there being no customary fee proved, is that the steward shall be paid upon a quantum meruit. The next question, which relates to compensation to the steward (e) 6 Taunt. 425. in consequence of the abolition of surrenders to the use of a will, must be answered upon the same principle. The legislature has carefully preserved existing rights, and the steward is clearly entitled to compensation, which must have reference to the supposed amount of labour which would have fallen upon him if the surrender to the use of a will had not been abolished. There might have been a surrender to the use of the will either in court or out of court and afterwards to be presented in court and enrolled: but it appears to me that the labour would have been almost the same in either case, and the officer of this court will therefore have no difficulty in settling the amount and laying down a uniform rule on the subject. The remaining demand of the steward is for a separate fee upon the admission of each joint-tenant to the same tenement, and I am of opinion that he is not entitled to make that demand. No such claim is made out by the custom, and there is no rule of copyhold law giving him any such right. There is no material addition of labour upon such an admission, and I think the fee demanded and paid in that respect is recoverable in this action." With reference to the decision that 13s. 4d. would be an Reasonable fees. unreasonable amount to claim as a customary fee, it will be remembered that in the case of a marriage-fee of 13s. it was held in the case of Bryant v. Foot (a) that the amount was so great as to lead to the irresistible inference that it could not have existed in point of fact in the time of Richard I., and that this inference was in itself sufficient to rebut the presumption, arising from modern usage, that the fee had an immemorial legal existence. A custom that every free tenant should for default of appearance at the leet pay seven shillings to the steward for the use of the lord has also been held to be unreasonable, for "it being in time immemorial, seven shillings is too great a sum to pay for such a default" (b). (a) L. R. 2 Q. B. 161; and see Lawrence v. Hitch, ibid. 184, n. E. (b) Morgan's Case, 8 Mod. 296, 302. Fees where estates are undivided. Fees in case of allotments under several titles. It will be remembered that coparceners are entitled to be admitted as one heir, and therefore on one set of fees (c), and that tenants in common aliening their separate undivided shares, even by a conveyance to one purchaser of the whole, are treated as having separate tenements, and therefore that a purchaser, before the reunion of the undivided shares can take place, must have separate admittances and pay separate sets of fees (d). The following case refers to the fees which a steward may claim upon alienation of a copyhold allotment which has been made in respect of lands held under different titles. A copyholder was owner of sixteen tenements held by as many separate copies of court-roll and by sixteen separate quit-rents: and he had been admitted to these tenements at five different times, and by five distinct titles. By a Local Act which directed commissioners to allot the waste lands among the owners in proportion to their rights and interests it was declared that the allotted lands should continue to be held by the owners under the tenures, rents, customs, and services as the lands in respect of which they were allotted would have been held if the Act had not passed, and that where the lands were held under different titles or for different estates the commissioners should distinguish the lands held for each of such estates and titles and set out the allotments accordingly. The commissioners allotted to the tenant in respect of his sixteen copyhold tenements, five pieces of land amounting to forty-nine acres, but did not distinguish in respect of which of the tenements or of what particular estates the five pieces were allotted. The tenant afterwards surrendered one of the allotments to the use of a purchaser who was duly admitted to the same. By the custom of the manor, where any person was varying amount, Shepherd v. Payne, two opinions in 1 Cas. & Op. 227, 230. (c) Rex v. Bonsall Manor (Lord of), 3 B. & C. 173. (d) Reg. v. Eton College, 8 Q. B. 526. admitted in severalty to a part of a copyhold tenement, the steward of the manor was entitled upon such admission to the same amount of fees as if such person had been admitted to the whole of such tenement. In an action by the steward to recover sixteen fees in respect of the admission to the purchased allotment it was held that it must be considered to have been allotted in respect of a portion of each of the sixteen former tenements, and that therefore the steward was entitled to recover sixteen fees (e). It may be mentioned, however, that the Board of Agriculture can now amend awards under Local Acts which are defective in distinguishing the several lands in respect of which an allotment is made (f). When copyholds are taken by a company under the pro- Fees when visions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (g), co under copy holds the steward of the manor is entitled under the 95th section Lands Clauses Consolidation of that Act only to the fee payable in respect of a surren- Act, 1845. der, and not to another fee for admittance, even although he may be usually entitled by the custom of the manor to one fee upon surrender and another upon admittance (h). give notice every tenant The Copyhold Act, 1887, provides (i) that upon the ad- Steward to mittance or enrolment of any tenant after 31st December, as to enfran1887, the steward of the manor is to give, without charge, chisement to to the tenant so admitted or enrolled a notice in the form on admittance prescribed by the Act, informing him that if he so desires without fee. he may enfranchise the land and convert it into freehold upon certain conditions; and if the steward neglects to serve such notice, he is not entitled to any fee for the admittance or enrolment of the tenant. (e) Evans v. Upsher, 16 M. & W. 675. (f) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118, s. 152; 52 & 53 Vict. c. 30. (g) 8 Vict. c. 18. (h) Cooper v. Norfolk Rail. Co., 3 Ex. 546. (i) 50 & 51 Vict. c. 73, s. 1. CHAPTER X. Evidence of copyhold tenure. Tenure in free alms. EVIDENCE. In this chapter it is proposed to consider some of the rules of evidence relating to the matters discussed in the earlier chapters. As to what constitutes a copyhold tenure, it will be remembered that the proper criterion of a customary tenure is to ascertain whether its alienation is complete without any interference by the lord (a). The land is freehold if no such interference is necessary, even though there may be an obligation on the tenant to be admitted subsequently (b). If admittance, entry on a roll, or the like, be necessary for a complete alienation, it will be copyhold, although conveyed by a lease and release or grant or other assurance proper to freeholds (c); but if the copyhold has been severed from the manor it will pass by an ordinary assurance (d). Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish copyholds of a certain kind from estates at will or tenancies from year to year, as where the names of the tenants are entered in a book or roll, and the steward decides whether he shall admit the alienee or not. In some instances evidence as to the tenure will be afforded by decisions in parliamentary registration cases and similar proceedings when the nature of the tenancy has come into dispute (e). It is sometimes necessary to ascertain whether lands are |