Page images



Enformation is sought on the following points:



(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 291.)

In the village of X the church and churchyard are situated about 150 yards from the main road, and are approached by a roadway about 40 feet wide which terminates at the lych-gate. A public footpath runs from the main road along this roadway through the churchyard and fields beyond.

The land on either side of the roadway belongs to the same owner. On the left is the farmhouse, stabling, sheds, and yard which open on to it, and on the right is a stable and granary.

About 40 years ago the owner gave up a strip of land to widen the roadway, which was previously from 25 to 30 feet wide, and the then owner of the great tithes planted some chestnut trees to improve the appearance of the approach to the church.

The public have always exercised the right to drive up to the church for services, but the tenant of the farm stands carts and implements in the roadway, but not so as to stop the access to the church.

Owing to the farm traffic, the way has fallen into disrepair, and persons going to the church or making use of the footpath have to wade through a quagmire.

The owner and his tenant object to the district council doing anything, and refuse to repair.

Is this roadway a churchway vested in and repairable by the district council, who have taken over the roads, or is it repairable by the owner? What steps are necessary to secure an abatement of the nuisance?



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 291, 292.)

A holding consisting of 212 acres (of which 40 acres are arable), with dwelling house and stabling for 18 horses, both detached, is to be let as a

stud farm. The entry is as follows: arable 14th February, pasture 6th April, house, buildings, stables, and meadow-land 13th May. The arable land is subject to an away going crop off one-third. The holding was rack-rented, but is now let at its agricultural value.

In consideration of the reduced rent and landlord's outlay in permanent improvements the tenant is willing to give up all claim for compensation on quitting.

Can the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, be expressly excluded from applying to this holding, say, for instance, on the grounds that it is a stud farm and may be entirely stocked by horses, and that, as such, it is not an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Act?



(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 293.)

A is building owner and is proposing to rebuild his house, but not to rebuild the party-wall, which, however, will have to be repaired in parts. The adjoining premises are held :

First by B, the original lessor, for a long term of years.

Second by C, who holds under repairing lease from B for a term expiring in two or three years.

Third by D, who holds on lease from C for the remainder of his term, but with repairing modified by excepting fair use and wear.

A has served notices on B, C, and D, stating the nature of the proposed work, and D, who is also the occupier, has signified his consent in writing for the work to proceed.

Can B or C prevent the work proceeding without their consent or without an award being made?

If the work proceeds without reference to B or C--should the wall have to be pulled down owing to it being in an unsound condition-who'should A apply to to agree the terms of an award, seeing that D is not liable under his lease?

When there are several owners, as in this case, is it necessary to serve them all with notice?




(For Replies to this Query, see p. 293.)

Four and a half years ago instructions were given by a surveyor of a District Council (then Local Board of Health and by their authority) to a quantity surveyor to prepare bills of quantities for a proposed public building. These were then prepared and delivered, immediately after which the plans were disapproved by the Local Government Board and tenders were not invited.

From that time the scheme has been from various causes under revision, and is now approved, but the Council decline to appoint the surveyor to prepare revised quantities, and disclaim liability for the former ones, on the ground that they were not aware of their having been prepared, and that a claim had not before been submitted to them.

The surveyor's answer to that was, that it was not for the quantity surveyor to question the authority of the Council's surveyor, and that as the scheme had never been abandoned there was no opportunity of presenting an account.

The questions are: (a) Is it necessary for the instructions to the quantity surveyor to be under seal?

(b) Does the lapse of time, or any other technical point, bar the claim in any way?

[blocks in formation]

Did Section 33 of the London Council General Powers Act, 1890, confer upon the owners, who came within the three exemptions mentioned in that section, the right of building their flank walls beyond the line of frontage in the side street? If so they would still be entitled to do so, as notwithstanding that this Act was repealed by Section 215 of the Building Act, 1894, Sub-section 2 (B) of the same section provides that the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, &c., acquired under any enactment repealed.

In a case in which I have just been concerned it was proposed to erect a building, as shown on plot 4 in the accompanying plan, the flank wall projecting beyond the general line of buildings in the side street in a similar manner to that done on plots 1, 2, and 3, and indeed on every

corner plot in the Road marked AA on this estate, which was laid out for building in 1855. But the builder was summoned by the London County Council, under Section 22, for building beyond the frontage, and the matter was three times before the Magistrate at Clerkenwell, the solicitor for the London County Council arguing that by the case of Nixey v. London County Council (the only report of which appears to be in the Justice of the Peace for April 4th, 1896) that, notwithstanding the land came within the exceptions of Section 33, the Magistrate was bound to order us to comply with the certificate of the superintending architect which defined the general line of buildings in the side street. The Magistrate appears to have adopted this view and in giving his decision admitted that it was a very difficult case, but said he must ask us to set back, inflicted a fine of sixpence and gave the London County Council 28. costs, and advised the defendant not to go to law about it. Assuming the magistrate was correct in his decision had he power to inflict even this fine of sixpence? According to Section 200 Sub-section 2 (A) of the Building Act, 1894, the penalty for this offence is an amount not exceeding £20 a day during every day of the continuance of the non-compliance of the Order of the Court, but the solicitor for the County Council argued that he could inflict a fine under Paragraph J Sub-section 11 of the last mentioned section, though this appears to provide for any other offence and not the one above mentioned.

I may mention that formal application was (without prejudice) made to the County Council for their consent to build the flank wall beyond the line of frontage in the side street, but same was refused.




(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 294.)

A enters on a half-yearly tenancy at the Whitsuntide term. What notice to quit is necessary? Is a three months' notice sufficient, or must a six months' notice be given, and when to expire?



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 294, 295.)

In making a valuation for the purpose of mortgage upon the following class of property, what would be a reasonable allowance for repairs as a deduction from the gross rents?

Would 7 per cent. on the gross rents be a fair amount?

[blocks in formation]

A new building, erected in a neighbourhood where professional suites of rooms let well, being a favourite position for solicitors to have their offices. The house is divided into 12 suites, each suite comprising from two to five rooms.

It may be assumed :

1. That the building has been well and substantially constructed with excellent materials, both as regards structural and decorative work;

2. That the tenancies are for 3, 7, 14, or 21 years;

3. That all the tenants are only required to keep and deliver up their respective offices in good repair, there being no painting or papering covenants in any of the leases;

4. That the lessor will have to keep in repair the landings, passages, staircase, and roof, as well as the exterior;

5. That the gross rents approximately amount to £800 per ann.



(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 295.)

A owns warehouse with gable end.

B owns plot of land adjoining, and has built small stable against A's gable, with two piers to support roof timbers.

A complains that B is making use of his wall between points E and F (though there are no connections into A's gable end wall), and demands stable to be taken away or a wall built between points E and F. Query-Can A insist upon this?

[blocks in formation]



(For Replies to this Query, see p. 296.ì

Have any arrangements been made with tenants under the following circumstances? If so, what are they, and how have they answered their purpose?

An owner is very anxious to preserve game of all kinds on his estate, but his efforts to do so are considerably hindered by the fact that between the three best coverts on the estate (which is only a small one) there lie some fields now let to tenants on the estate, with their respective farms.

« EelmineJätka »