Page images




(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 308.) Two external walls are built touching ; one owner wishes to raise his wall, and contends no notice is necessary under Part VIII. of the London Building Act, 1894. The adjoining owner refers to Section 95, Subsection 2 (a), and requires a notice; but the building owner states that the wall will not be raised “in pursuance of the power by” that Part of the Act, as there is no power given.




(For Replies to this Query, sce p. 309.) After public inquiries, the last being held on October 3rd, 1896, the County Council made an order that a certain field should be acquired by the Parish Council for allotments.

This order was in due course confirmed by the Local Government Board. After this a further attempt was made by the owner and the Parish Council to settle the rent to be paid per acre. Up to March 1st, 1897, this is still unsettled, neither has an arbitrator been appointed.

The tenant appeals to his landlord as to whether he can sow the field with barley, as it is now practically impossible, under all the circumstances of the case, for an arbitrator to be appointed and his award made by April 6th next, the date at which it was expected that the land would be taken over by the Parish Council. There is also the further possibility of the Parish Council eventually not wishing to carry out the order through the heavy expenses making the rent of the allotments too high.

Has the tenant the right to cultivate the field in the ordinary course of husbandry as though the order was non-existent?

If he does so cultivate will he be entitled to full compensation for labour, seed, &c., and also for loss of crop, in the event of the order being carried out ?

Must he give up the land, irrespective of date, immediately upon the arbitrator, if one be appointed, making his award, provided the Parish Council wish immediate possession ?

If, on the other hand, he does not sow his barley, and the Parish Council eventually desire, and are allowed, not to carry out the order, must the tenant suffer the whole loss of his crop, &c., or can he call on the Parish Council to compensate him for it?




(For Replies to this Query, see p. 310.) An occupation road runs from the high road through a wood belonging to A, and is only used by the tenants of B who live on the other side of the wood. Counsel's opinion has been taken as to who should repair the road through the wood, and he says the tenants of B. A is going to fell some timber, and the timber merchant will now use the road through the wood.

1. Is A bound to put the road into repair afterwards ?

2. If he does repair the road, even if not bound to, will he then be obliged to always repair it ?

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 311.) What are the usual royalties reserved to a landowner in a lease of the coal, &c., underlying his estate ? The intending lessees offer the following scale :-

Coal, 1th selling price at pit's mouth ;
Coke, tath selling price at coke ovens ;
Ironstone, 6d. per ton ;
Shale, zóth selling price ;

Fireclay, 6d. per ton. The lessees stipnlate that 10 per cent. of all coal shall be free of royalty, and used at toe colliery.

Is this a fair and proper scale for the landowner to accept ?




(For Replies to this Query, see p. 312.) A sale of timber has been effected lately in this neighbourhood under a contract of agreement signed by the purcbaser containing the following clause.

" Clause 5: The timber, bark lop and top shall not in any way be unnecessarily or improperly dispersed over th: woods or fields, and the purchaser shall use all j ossible “caution to prevent damage to the lands, growing crops, underwood, hedges, ditches, * gates, stiles or fences, and in the a'ljoining growing tim her and trees in the falling or “ removing of the timber and trees compriseil in this fale, and the lop, top, and bark " thereof purchased by him and with his servants, carriages, teams, avd horses, shall keep * the accustomed roads to and from the woods or plantations, or upon the said lands or " such trackways as shall be agreed on. All injury or damage arising from any breach or “disregard of this or any other of these conditions or any other wilful unnecessary or * negligent damage or any other injury or damage by the purchaser or agents, workmen " or labourers, horses and other cattle, to the lands or other standing timter and trees on " the estate or to the fences, or to the lands, or to the tenants, their stock or crops, by the “ falling or removal of the timber and trees hereby proposed to be sold, shall be forthwith “ made good and paid by the purchaser."

It is admitted that no wilful or unnecessary damage has been done hy the purchaser, but the tenant of the vendor (who is party to this agreement) has sustained injury to his growing underwood, repair of roads, damage to crop, and interference with gates, without which damage it was impossible to remove so large a quantity of timber across the farm lands.

Under these conditions would the purchaser be liable to repay this amount? He is advised that the damage not being wilful or unnecessary he is under no liability.


[ocr errors]


(For Replies to this Query, see p. 315.) Bills of quantities are issued for the erection of a building, tenders received and the lowest accepted. The contractor's priced quantities are then deposited as a schedule. Upon examination, several serious errors are discovered, such as the following : 15 rods of brickwork at £18 per rod carried out at a total of £18 ; 85 feet at 58. a square carried out at 5, a foot.

A. What is the general practice in adjusting such errors ?
B. In the event of variations, and assuming that the contractor has

signed a contract at the amount of his tender, at what rate per
rod should the brickwork be assessed, strictly upon the terms of

his contract ? c. Has a contractor any power to claim that all such errors should be

adjusted, provided that the total amount is not altered ? D. Is there any legal decision upon this question ?



(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 314 ) A ratione tenuræ road (A) was taken over by the Highway Board a few years ago. There being a steep bank, a retaining wall (B) had been erected many years previously to improve the gradient. The retaining wall was not mentioned when taken over, but it was assumed by the adjoining owner (W), whose land it necessarily supports, and who paid for the road being taken over, that the Board wound be liable for its repair along with the road. The District Council (late Highway Board) deny liability to repair B, while they admit their liability to repair wall C.


W's Land.




INCUMBENT. (For Replies to this Query, see p. 314.) A benefice becomes vacant and the diocesan surveyor does not make bis inspection and report antil fifteen months after, instead of within three months, as prescribed by Section 29.

The surveyor takes the premises as he finds them at the date of his inspection, and calls upon the late incumbent to make good all defects which have been caused through lapse of time or by the acts or default of the new incumbent (or servants or workpeople employed by him), who has been in possession of the premises for a period of twelve months or more previous to the date of the inspection. He includes the live and dead wood fences and hedges round the glebe lands, which the tenants, by their agreements with the late incumbent, were bound to keep in tenantable repair, and had dɔne so up to the time the living was vacated. He also includes a new fence to be inade, which was not in existence twenty-five years ago when the late incumbent was appointed, and was not asked for by the then surveyor, being deemed unnecessary.

The diocesan surveyor states that there is no appeal from his award, and that the same must be paid without question to the new incumbents and by him into the Bounty Office.

Is this statement correct? If not, what course should the late incombent pursue other than stating in writing to the bishop his objections to

the report on grounds of fact or law, as per Section 32, and refusing to pay over the amount of the award to the new incumbent ?

Is the late incumbent legally responsible for the dilapidations cansed by the acts or default of the new incumbent or by the action of the elements after the date of his vacating the benefice, and which dilapidations would not have been brought under the notice of the surveyor if he had made his inspection within the time prescribed by Section 29 ?

Can the new incumbent recover the cost of such dilapidations from the late incumbent ?



(For Replies to this Query, see p. 315.) To what length of notice is a land agent legally entitled from an employer to terminate his engagement when no written contract exists and the accounts are rendered balf-yearly, the remuneration being by 5 per cent. commission and usual expenses ?


(For Replies to this Query, see p. 316.) Certain property (A-A on sketch below), all in one holding, has its several drains connected to a main, or intercepting drain, indicated by a dotted line, which is exterior to such property for about 360 yards, being laid under the road (which is under the control of the County Council), and then re-enters, and terminates upon the said property A-A.

Another property (B) is also connected to the main drain, and the highway surveyors have connected one, at least, of their roadside gullies into it.

(1) Is the main drain a sewer within the meaning of the Public Health Act, 1875, in view of the fact that it re-enters and terminates on the property it more especially serres ?

(2) If it is a sewer, and so vests in the local sanitary authority, has such authority power to carry out the effectual treatment of the sewage conveyed thereby, at its termination on the private property A-A?

It is to be noted there does not appear to have been any sale or renting of an easement for the drain to re-enter the property. The owner seems to have tacitly adopted it as essentially his own, or to have made it himself.

[blocks in formation]
« EelmineJätka »