Page images

Michaelmas, and that (as he reads it) the half-year due at Lady-day must be reckoned in its entirety at the January rate, 1896. We contend that the expression "shall be regulated by " enables us to, and means that we should, charge the last quarter of 1895 at the rate given in Willich's Tables under the heading “ Payable for the year 1895." Of course the trivial amount in question is unimportant, but one of us two land agents is right, and the other wrong. Will anyone interested and experienced in tithe collection say which it is? Of course one obvious remedy is to alter the half-yearly collection to Midsummer and Christmas, but we should like this point cleared up first if possible.



I have recently let a brickyard, where all kinds of clay goods such as bricks, drain pipes, fire clay mangers, chimney pots, &c., will be made. The tenant pays so much rent for the house and land upon which the raw material is worked up, and I am laying down a small tram line to bring the clay on to the ground. For various reasons it is not practicable to charge a Royalty at so much per 1,000 on the articles made, and I am anxious to know what would be a fair price for the tenant to pay the landlord for the clay got out at per cubic yard.

There is an ample supply of water and a railway siding into the works.




Are the powers given in Section 277 of the Public Health Act, 1875, having reference to the constitution of a special drainage district, exercisable by an urban authority as well as a rural authority, as therein stated, and if so, by what enactment have the powers been given to the urban authority.


Reply to Query CCLXXXVIII. (Vol. VII., p. 439).


1. The Acts for rebuilding the City of London are 18 & 19 Carolus II., cap. 8 (entitled "AN ACT for rebuilding the Citty of London"),

replies must, in all cases, be authenticated by the name of the Member supplying the information asked for.

and 22 Carolus II., cap. 11 (1670). The former is the principal Act, and was passed immediately after the great fire of 1666. It was repealed by 11 & 12 Victoria, cap. clxiii. The Act of 1670 was partly repealed by 1 & 2 George IV., cap. 89. Section 5 of the first-named Act provides :

"That all the outsides of all Buildings in and about the said Citty be "henceforth made of Bricke or Stone or of Bricke and Stone together 66 except Doore cases Window Frames and Brest Summers and other parts "of the First Story to the Front between the Peeres which are to be left "to the discretion of the Builder to use substantiall Oaken Timber instead "of Bricke or Stone for the conveniency of Shopps."

The scantlings to be used are given in the Schedule.

Also in the Schedule:

"That all Roofes Window Frames and Cellar Floores be made of "Oake."

"The Tile pins of Oake."

The Act of 1760 provides :

"That it be left to the liberty of ali and every the Builders of Corner "Houses to use a Substantiall Post of Oake Timber to prevent danger that

[ocr errors]

may happen by Carts and Carriages instead of the Corner Peere of "Bricke or Stone of such Demensions and scantlings as the Surveyours of "the said Citty shall direct and appoint." (Section vii.)

2. Although the said principal Act has been repealed since the granting of the lease in 1838, it might be successfully argued that the form of covenant was only a brief way of prescribing that the repairs should be carried out in a particular manner, and it is reasonable to assume that the lessor is entitled to have the premises repaired in as good a manner as formerly and in harmony with the rest of the structure, notwithstanding that the Act has been repealed; although it would be in the power of the representatives of the original lessors to waive their rights as to the particular manner in which the repairs should be done, seeing that they are not now tied by Act of Parliament to the use of "oaken timber," as formerly. H. G. ASSITER, Professional Associate.

Reply to Query CCCI. (Vol. VIII., p. 23).

LONDON BUILDING ACT, 1894-WORKING CLASSES-DEFINITION. (Addendum to reply A, p. 47, ante.)

The Municipal Corporations Act 1882 provides (Sec. 111) inter alia that under certain conditions municipal corporations may "convert corporate land into sites for working men's dwellings." In Sub-sec. (6) working men's dwellings is interpreted as meaning "buildings suitable for the habitation of persons employed in manual labour and their families. It appears to me that this is the class of persons intended by the term "working class" in the London Building Act 1894.*


* Also see Transactions, vol. xxix., p. 41, where further information will be found.

Reply to Query CCCX. (Vol. VIII., p. 26).





I cannot see anything in Section 13 to prevent the building of the addition C up to the "prescribed distance," and if the querist desires to retain the forecourt I think it may be done under Section 13, Sub-section 5, which, after providing for verification of plans of existing building by the district surveyor, goes on to say:



Thereupon it shall be lawful for such person to alter or re-erect such building or structure but so that no land within the prescribed distance "shall be occupied by the re-erected building or structure or the forecourt "or such open space as aforesaid except that which was occupied within the prescribed distance by the previously existing building structure "forecourt or open space."

I should think the term "re-erected building" is intended to include an altered one, otherwise the relaxation appears to me valueless.



By obtaining a certificate from the district surveyor, the buildings to be erected on A and also on B (if the outbuildings can be considered buildings or structures under the Act) may be carried out to the same building line as before, but the buildings on the open space C must be kept 20 feet from the centre of the road and the garden wall pulled down.

J. D. MATHEWS, Fellow.

Reply to Query CCCXIII. (Vol. VIII., p. 28).



It is not clear in the question by whom the objection was taken to the kind of stone used. If, for instance, Portland was required by the freeholder's surveyor, and, at the urgent request of the lessee's surveyor, Bath was allowed, in case of failure the lessee and of course the sub-lessee (if .holding on the same covenants) would be liable. Supposing the stone required by the freeholder's surveyor was used and fell into decay (whether it was inferior or not) the lessee would still be liable under the usual maintenance and repairing covenants.

J. D. MATHEWS, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCCXVIII. (Vol. VIII., p. 32).



The Landlord's notice, which has been already given, cannot be treated as a notice under the Act unless the tenant had previously given his notice of claim.

It would be safer to give a formal notice of counterclaim under the Act -although the Courts have not yet given any decision as to this formality being necessary. The majority of umpires and arbitrators consider that the words "shall be," in Section 6, make it imperative upon them to allow the deductions.

It would also be the simplest (and probably wisest) course to make the claims for dilapidations and breaches of covenant by way of counterclaim under the Act, and let them be dealt with by the umpire appointed under the Act. The only occasions when such a course is not preferable to an action in the County or Higher Courts is when the amount likely to be recovered exceeds the amount likely to be awarded to the tenant because this excess cannot be recovered under the Act.


F. PUNCHARD, Fellow.

Assuming the notice of claims already served under the Act to be in order, the landlord's claims for breaches of covenant or for dilapidation under the agreement should be added and form a part of the counterclaims and the award made out by the same referees (or their umpire) as have already been appointed in the case.


Replies to Query CCCXIX. (Vol. VIII. p. 160.)



The general conditions of the lease are ambiguous. The tenant agrees to leave the unused muck, dung, and compost which shall be made on the premises during the last year. This does not include the " foldage of the flock" under the usual acceptation of the term, although in some districts a claim could be set up for the unexhausted value of purchased foods. This is a new contingency which was not contemplated when the lease was drawn. The landlord agrees to take the fodder at feeding value. In this case the manure made from the produce of the land belongs to the farm; . hence the outgoing tenant's claim would be confined to the value of the labour expended in the preparation and application of the muck, dung, and compost to the land. The cost of seed and of labour of sowing would be allowed.



The intention of the lease is evidently to pay for muck or dung of horses or cattle made in the buildings or yards.

If the expression "foldage of the flock is intended to mean the "lambing yard or pens," manure made there would usually be allowed for under the covenants of the lease.

No custom exists (so far as I know) in the Midland Counties, which would allow for sheep droppings on the farm, whether from sheep folded on roots or otherwise, except by way of recognised allowances for cakes or artificial purchased foods consumed.

In Surrey and Sussex, and possibly some other counties, a custom exists to pay or allow for "foldings of sheep" on a basis varying according to whether cakes or other purchased foods have been consumed by them or not.

The question is silent as to the locality in which the farm is situated. Custom of the district would to a great extent rule the point.



The "foldage of a flock" cannot in my opinion be claimed by the outgoing tenant under the clauses of the lease quoted above.

It is possible that the custom of the country in which the holding is situated would, however, recognise a small claim per acre for the actual labour of "pitching the folds."

L. H. MARSHALL, Fellow.


Under the Agricultural Holdings Act there can be no claim at all except for cake and corn purchased and used upon the holding within the last two years of the tenancy, and this would require a proper notice and claim, made two months before the expiration of the tenancy, in terms of the Act.

There may possibly be a claim under custom for the "foldage of a flock" in the district, but there being no old inventory showing how the tenant's family originally entered upon the farm, it will be difficult to prove; and the custom will have to be a well-recognised one, or the claim will fail. I should rely upon the Act of 1883.


Reply to Query CCCXX. (Vol. VIII., p. 160).


A careful perusal of the report of this case, and specially of that in the

« EelmineJätka »