signed, and verified, and the position of the timber framing on plan could be marked by a lead line on the floor of the new workshop.

H. CHATFEILD CLARKE, Fellow.

Reply to Query CCCL. (Vol. VIII., p. 278.)

WEEKLY TENANCY-LIABILITY FOR REPAIRS.

In the case of a house let furnished, unless there is a special agreement to the contrary, the tenant is under no liability to do any repairs, except such as may be necessary in consequence of actual damage done by him to the premises.

I cannot say whether the person on whose behalf the house is let is legally liable to repair the burst pipes, but if the continuance of the tenancy is of any importance to him, he will certainly have the work done.

HAROLD GRIFFIN, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCCLI. (Vol. VIII., p. 278).

PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) ACT, 1891.

A.

If your correspondent will read Section 39 of the Public Health Act, 1891, he will find that bye-laws shall be made with respect to waterclosets, whether constructed before or after the passing of the Act. Bye-laws (1 and 5) made thereunder, do not apply to the position of a w.c. erected before the date of the Act, but only to the fittings thereof. There is, however, no doubt that the sanitary authority can compel the removal of the w.c. to an external wall if it is a nuisance or injurious to health. C. JONES, Fellow.

B.

In my opinion the sanitary authority cannot call for reconstruction. In case of alteration to w.c., the apparatus and fittings have to be provided in accordance with the London County Council's bye-law.

C. H. LOWE, Fellow.

C.

I know of no Act or regulation by which the owner can be compelled to remove the w.c.

Kennedy, J., in Fulham Vestry v. Solomon [L. R. (1836) 1 Q. B., p. 193] (Professional Notes, vol. viii. p. 61), held a notice under the

1891 Act to make structural alterations to a w.c. existing prior to 1891 to be void, adding that the words in Sections 40 and 41 "not in proper "order and condition," "in bad order and condition," and "require "alteration and amendment," do not refer to structural alterations.

D. DINWIDDY, Professional Associate.

D.

The County Council cannot under its bye-laws object to a water-closet constructed prior to the 28th June, 1893, the date when the bye-laws were allowed, on the ground that such water-closet is constructed contrary to the bye-laws. If, however, the water-closet is for other reasons improper or insufficient the sanitary authority may, under Section 37 (3) of the Act of 1891 require a proper and sufficient water-closet to be provided.

R. CUNNINGHAM GLEN, Associate.

Replies to Query CCCLII. (Vol. VIII., p. 278).

ASSESSMENT OF LOSS BY FIRE.

A.

C should, I think, be paid such sum as would enable him to replace the hay and straw, and not the consuming price only. In the Land Agents' Record of February 13th, p. 262, there is reference made to an award under which a landlord lost the manurial value of hay and straw which had been destroyed by fire, although the tenant had received the full value thereof under his insurance. The referee, following a previous precedent, had allowed the landlord compensation, but the award was set aside as to this item on appeal. I am sorry I cannot trace the case referred to.

L. BURD, Fellow.

B..

It is difficult to deal with an abstract question like this without knowing the whole circumstances of the case.

The object of fire insurance is to fully secure the party who insures against loss. If in C's case he would require the full market value to cover his loss, he would without doubt be entitled to it; on the other hand, if less than the market price would fully recoup him, he could not enforce a claim for more.

A quitting tenant may, under certain conditions, be as fully entitled to the full market value as the sitting tenant.

There is no hard and fast rule as to compensation being based on either market or consuming price, neither has the landlord or incoming

tenant to be considered, unless the outgoing tenant is by some means legally bound to make good their loss. In such a case he could fall back on his insurance to indemnify him against loss.

E. H. MORRIS, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCCLIII. (Vol. VIII., p. 278).

VALUATION OF MARKET GARDENS.

A.

In ascertaining the value of the freehold nursery described, I presume the surviving partner is called upon to pay out to the executors the value of the late partner's interest. In arriving at its value, I should consider

it in the light of a going concern. After assessing the value of the land and cottages, due regard being paid to the suitability of the locality for growing purposes, I should value the glass erections strictly on their merits, giving consideration to their age, style of construction, and condition. I should deal in the same way with the vines, peach trees, and other stock, either planted out or in pots, allowance being made for the state of the borders, age and condition of trees, varieties, &c. In such a case I am of opinion that the purchaser should be liberally dealt with. W. H. PROTHEROE, Fellow.

B.

In my opinion the houses and erections mentioned should be valued as a going concern, and not at their value subject to removal.

GEORGE LANGRIDGE, Fellow.

C.

I assume that B is a willing buyer, and that he is prepared to pay for A's interest in the property.

I should value it as under:

1. The present value of the two acres of bare freehold land.

2. The unexpired value of any dung, manure, and cultivations on

same.

3. The present value of the fruit trees and anything else that is growing on the land.

4. The value of the cottages.

5. The value of the glass houses, piping, machinery, &c.

As regards the last item, I should value each portion of work separately according to its age, of course valuing the new work at more than that which is ten years old. It would, of course, entirely depend upon the quality of the work and how well it has been taken care of as to

how long a life it should be allowed, but if the houses are built of sound yellow deal, and are kept well painted, they would last a long time.

I expect the questioner desires to have the number of years mentioned, but I think this can hardly be done without seeing the buildings.

Assuming a willing purchaser, I do not think that the worth to sell away has anything to do with the question, neither has the original cost, except as a guide; and if by trade connections is meant goodwill, this should be separately valued, although it is probably worth very little.

J. W. KEMSLEY, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCCLIV. (Vol. VIII., p. 279).

VALUATION FOR PROBATE DUTY-AGRICULTURAL HOLDING.

A.

(1) Yes; except in the case when the executors or one of them is in a position to swear to the value of the property without professional assistance.

(2) Yes; except as above mentioned.

The executors are bound to satisfy the authorities as to the actual value of the estate they have to administer; for this purpose they should state separately the amount of assets and the amount of liabilties, the estate being only liable for death or probate duties on the balance of the former over and above the latter.

Straw would only be valued as straw if severed from the land; if not severed it would be valued as part of the growing crop. I am told that In this district of Warwickshire and Worcestershire it was not usual to include hay, straw, or growing crops in a valuation for probate 20 or 30 years ago, but now it is invariably done.

GEORGE W. RAIKES, Fellow.

B.

Whether a tenant holding under an agreement or a freeholder farming his own land, they have each an interest in the emblements produced by the industry and outlay of the person in possession. In the case of straw, whether severed from the soil or not, the land retains a considerable claim for manurial value which must first be satisfied. No crops with more than a year to come to maturity can be admitted as emblements. Though probably strictly legal, it is an unusual course to include straw in a probate valuation.

GILBERT MURRAY, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCCLV. (Vol. VIII., p. 279).

SALE OF FARM-DEFINITION OF "PRODUCE."

A.

I think the rick of hay would be included in the sale as if, as I assume, the owner is also the occupier of the farm.

C. H. INGE, Fellow.

B.

I construe "produce " as something grown upon the farm. If the rick of hay in question was grown on A's farm I can hardly see how there can be a doubt about its being included in the "produce," and to me it seems clear that it should form a portion of the produce to be included in B's purchase.

W. B. CANNING, Fellow.

C.

Decidedly, if grown upon the farm the rick of hay would come under the heading of " produce," and a properly drawn up farm tenancy agreement provides for the consumption on the premises of all hay, straw, and other like produce of the farm.

F. E. GOTTO, Fellow.

D.

A rick of hay on a farm undoubtedly comes within the definition of "produce."

In the assessment of agricultural fire losses the point constantly arises, as in policies of this class the item covering farm produce (but not the items covering live stock or implements of husbandry) is usually subject to the average clause, and this entails the necessity of valuing all the produce, and hay ricks are always included in such valuation for the purpose of applying the clause.

G. BLENCOWE, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCCLVI. (Vol. VIII. p. 279.)

LIABILITY OF THE THAMES CONSERVANCY TO PROTECT RIVER BANK FOR BENEFIT OF RIPARIAN OWNER.

A.

I have carefully read and considered the above case, and am decidedly of opinion that the Conservators are liable for the damage done; they, it