Page images


I should say he would be entitled to six months' (or half a year's) notice. If the principal wished him to give up his appointment at once,

the agent should receive half a year's salary.

L. BURD, Fellow.


Except in the case of menial servants, there is no inflexible rule with respect to the duration and mode of determining general contracts of service ; but every case depends on its own peculiar circumstances, and is for the jury to determine (Fairman v. Oakford, 29 L. T., Ex., 459; Buckingham v. Surrey &c. Canal (0., 46 L. T., 885.) In the above instance the agent would probably be entitled to a three months' notice expiring with one of the half-yearly account days.

J. II. REDMAN, Associate.

Replies to Query (CCLXVIII. (Vol. VIII., p. 285).




Clause 4 of the Act interprets Drain as “any drain of and used for the drainage of one building only, or premises within the same curtilage, and made merely for the purpose of communicating therefrom with a resspool or other like receptacle for drainage, or with a sewer, into which the drainage of two or more buildings or premises occupied by different persons is conveyed : " Sener " includes sewers and drains of every description

except drains to which the word • Drain,' interpreted as aforesaid, “ applies, and except drains vested in or under the control of any authority “ having the management of roads, and not being a local authority under « this Act."

I assume that the drain in question is not vested in or under the control of the County Council, which is the authority having the management of the road, and is not a local authority under the Act.

The questioner cleverly obscures his inquiry by evading the terms of the Act, which are “ buildings” und “premises,” and using a term o his own, “ property,” but I presume he does not intend other than “ buildings “ and premises.” Premises by the Act “ includes messuages, buildings, “ lands, easements, and hereditaments of any tenure : "

(1) It appears to me that so much of the drain in question as is used for the drainage of more than one building only, or premises within the same curtilage, is a “Sewer," the fact that it re-enters and terminates on one of the premises it serves does not appear to me to affect it so as to remove it from the category of sewers.

(2) Clause 305 gives the local authority power “ to enter, examine, or lay open any lands or premises ... for the purpose of keeping in repair or examining works."




The particulars given are not sufficient to justify a decided opinion being given, but they apparently point to the pipe in the road being a sewer under the charge of the local sanitary authority, but in order to establish the fact as to the pipe being a sewer or a drain, the records and minutes relating to its construction must be taken into consideration.

WM. WEAVER, Fellon.

Replies to Query CCCLXIX. (Vol. VIII., p. 286).




After receipt of the tenant's claim for compensation under the Act, the landlord may counterclaim for all waste or breaches of good husbandry required by the implied agreement to farm under the custom of the country. But such waste or breaches should be clearly proved under local custom. The whole cost of one year's seeds is usually allowed the tenant. The value of the second year must depend on the seeds, state of land, and benefit to an incoming tenant.

A. VERNON, Fellow.



(1) By the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, under Clause 6, Subsection c, in ascertainment of the amount of compensation under this Act payable to the tenant, there shall be taken into account any sum due to the landlord in respect of any waste committed or permitted by the tenant. Amongst other matters waste is defined by Smith (Real and Personal Property) as “changing the course of husbandry,” and Fletcher (On Dilapidations) quotes Gibbons' definition as “the neglect to repair the “ necessary effects of time and use." Quite recently there was a reference in this neighbourhood to an umpire a claim on a tenant's quitting a farm held without an agreement which included nearly all the items mentioned, and a substantial sum was awarded. The landlord will have good grounds to sustain a claim for nearly all the items mentioned, either under the Agricultural Holdings Act or by the custom of the country.

(2) It appears to me no claim can arise for seeds used in one and two years' lays, as they cannot come under the term of permanent pasture.

0. N. Wyatt, Fellon.

[ocr errors]


I am afraid that the landlord cannot enter a counter-claim, as, in the absence of an express covenant or agreement to do repairs, a tenant from year to year is not liable for permissive waste, i.e., mere neglect to keep up the fences, &c. (Standen v. Christmas, 10 Q. B., 135 ; Bichford v. Parsons, 5 C. B., 920). If the waste can be shown to be voluntary, i.l., wilful, he might have a locus standi. It is, however, for consideration whether the landlord could not make a claim in these directions under the custom of the country, if such custom is clearly defined.

As to the payment for one or two years' lay, this depends on the custom of the neighbourhood. It is not generally usual to pay for lay ground, but in some parts where the lays remain down for several years (in Devonshire, for instance) they are paid for. I should say that the basis of valuation would be their value to an incoming tenant, taking into consideration their age, thickness of plant, and cleanliness ; having regard, of course, to their prime cost.

E. A. RAWLENCE, Fellow.


The tenant having elected to make a claim under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, must now comply with its provisions. The tenant may put in the seed bills for one and two years' lay and for acts of husbandry, and in some cases for manures and feeding staffs used on the land during the last two years of the tenancy. The landlord's counterclain will include cross cropping, foul stables, fallows or land laid down with seeds. The landlord is entitled to dilapidations to buildings, roads, gates, and fences, clearing of ponds or meres, and general neglect which may have accrued during a period not exceeding four years previous to the termination of the tenancy, the value to be assessed by two arbitrators and an umpire in the usual way.


Reply to Query CCCLXX. (Vol. VIII., p. 286).

1. If the quarry road is a public highway A may traverse it, not otherwise. Even if a public highway there seems to be an intervening space of twenty feet. A would have no right to pass over that land through an opening in the fence of own plot to reach the road.

2. A has a right to lateral support for his land in its natural condition and for buildings erected upwards of twenty years, not further.

3. By injunction.

4. That is a question of title only to be solved by looking at the Act. The fee simple is vested in somebody now subject to the right to quarry ; the working out of the quarry will not alter the title. A fee simple never remains in the clonds.

J. H. REDMAN, Associate.




[NOVEMBER 3RD, 1896.] Metropolis, Public Health-Order of Sanitary Authority as to Insuf

ficient Water-closet Accommodation-Jurisdiction of MagistratePublic Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 8: 55 Vict. c. 76), s. 37, sub-88. 3, 5.

The decision of the sanitary autbority acting under section 37, subsection 3, of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, that a house is not furnished with proper and sufficient water-closet accommodation, is final, subject only an appeal ander sub-section 5 to the County Council. Where, therefore, the owner or occupier of a house is summoned for noncompliance with a notice of the sanitary authority to provide such accommodation, a magistrate has no jurisdiction to reverse the decision of the sanitary authority and to hold that the accommodation is not required.(L. R. (1897], Q B. D., vol. i. p. 210.)



[ocr errors]

[NOVEMBER 5TH, 1896.) Metropolis Management_“ Nen Street-Paring Erpenses-- Metro

polis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), 4. 105– Metropolis Management Act, 1862 (25 26 Vict, c. 102), ss. 77, 112.

By section 105 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, the local authority may pave a new street and recover the expenses from the owners of the adjoining houses, where the owners of the houses forming the greater part of the street are desirous of having it paved, or where the local authority deem it necessary or expedient that such street

.This Section is intended primarily as a clue only to Reported Cases.

should be paved. By section 77 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1862, where the local authority, “under the powers given by section 105” of the Act of 1855 pave a new street, the owners of land abutting on the street are made liable to contribute to the expense as well as the owners of houses.

A road, which had been laid out since the passing of the Act of 1862, and was therefore a new street within the definition in section 112 of that Act, had upon one side a house and no other building, and upon the other side a house at one end and a chapel and hall at the other; no new buildings had been erected upon either side of the road for more than twenty years, nor was there any probability of the vacant plots of land on either side being built upon for some years.

Held, that a magistrate was justified in finding that the road was not a new street for the purposes of section 105 of the Act of 1855 or section 77 of the Act of 1862, and that the local authority could not, therefore, recover from the frontagers the expenses of paving the road.-(L. R. [1897], Q. B. I)., vol. i. p. 220.)


[NOVEMBER 6TH, 1896.] Local Government-Serers-Single Drain draining several Houses

Liability to Repair Public Health Act, 1875 (38 f: 39 Vict. c.55), 8. 41Hastings Improvement Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. cxcvi.),

8. 148.

Section 41 of the Public Health Act, 1875, empowers a local authority, on written application made to them stating that a drain is a nuisance or injurious to health, to enter the premises, and if the drain appears to be in bad condition, or to require alteration or amendment, to give notice to the owner or occupier to do the necessary works.

Section 148 of the Hastings Improvement Act, 1885, in cases where two or more houses are connected with a single private drain which conveys their drainage into a public sewer, gives the corporation all the powers conferred by Section 41 of the Act of 1875.

The owner of several houses connected with a single drain conveying their drainage into a public sewer applied for a mandamus to the corporation to repair and maintain the drain. No application had been made under Section 41 of the Public Health Act, 1875.

Held, that the Hastings Improvement Act, 1885, did not empower the corporation to require the owner to repair and maintain the drain, and the corporation were liable to repair and maintain it.—(L. R. (1897), Q. B, D., vol. i. p. 46.


« EelmineJätka »