« EelmineJätka »
Enformation is sought on the following points :
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD MODEL BY-LAWS.-AIR SPACE.
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 417, 418).
Plans for semi-detached houses were submitted to a rural sanitary authority possessing urban powers, and at the rear was shown a way or path 4 feet wide, and the earth to be excavated to about 2 feet 6 inches in depth, the remainder to be supported by a concrete wall. The plans, although being in every respect in accordance with the by-laws, will not be approved unless I excavate the earth and garden at the rear to an extent of 15 feet from the building, the surveyor to the authority contending that the by-laws require this to be done, as the Local Government Board Model By-laws in respect to air space show on a sketch that the ground is lovel. I have commenced the buildings and given the authority notice of my so doing.
Are my plans in this respect of air space correct, or must I excavate to the required distance as requested by the surveyor? I have submitted that the surveyor's interpretation of the by-law is not correct, as the by-law applies entirely to the area to be left at the rear for air space alone.
BY-LAW REFERRED TO. 54. Every person who shall erect a new domestic building shall provide in the rear of such building an open space exclusively belonging to such building and of an aggregate extent of not less than one hundred and fifty square feet, and free from any erection thereon above the level of the ground, except a water-closet, earth-closet or privy, and an ash-pit. He shall cause such open space to extend laterally throughout the entire width of such building to the boundary of any lands or premises immediately opposite or adjoining the site of such building, to be not less in any case than ten feet.
If the height of such building be fifteen feet, he shall cause such distance to be fifteen fiet at the least.
If the height of such building be trenty-five feet, he shall cause such distance to be twenty feet at the least.
If the height of such building be thirty-five feet or exceed thirty-fire feet, be shall cause such distance to be twenty-fire feet at the least.
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 419.)
The clerk to the Rural District Council does not know of any special
I am given to understand that underground bakehouses are now pro. hibited by statute. Is this so? If so, would a bakehouse be considered
underground which is constructed underneath a shop on a site which is 10 feet below the adjoining road, so that it is underground at front and on the ground floor at back ?
BRICKFIELD-BRICKS USED FOR KILNS, &c.—PROPERTY IN, AT END
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 419.) The tenant of a brickyard pays a fixed surface rent and a royalty per 1,000 bricks, &c., sold. He does not hold under any agreement. In erecting kilns and other buildings on the holding he uses bricks produced thereon, but does not pay any royalty in respect of those bricks.
Is he entitled at the end of the tenancy to remove the kilns and other buildings ?
ACCOMMODATION LAND—CLAIM FOR REMOVAL OF STRAW
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 420.) Can a landlord make any claim in consequence of a tenant, who holds under no written agreement, removing straw from accommodation land where there are no buildings, such accommodation land being about eight acres and part of a field let as allotments? The tenant has much improved the land in past years, and its present letting value is at least 10s. per acre more than that of the rest of the field. Has the tenant a right to counterclaim.
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 421.) A lease was granted 14 years ago containing the following repairing covenant :-“ The said lessee shall and will once in every three years of “ the said term colour the outside stucco or cement work of the said
messuage and premises of an uniform colour with the adjoining messuages, and also in a like uniform colour paint with two coats of
good oil paint, in a workmanlike manner, all the outside wood, metal, “ and other work of the same premises previously or usually painted. " And also will once in every seventh year paint with two coats of good "oil paint, and paper with appropriate wall papers, and whitewash, and
“ colour all the internal parts of the said messuage and premises previously
or usually painted, papered, whitewashed, and coloured respectively. “ And also shall he as often as need shall require well and sufficiently “ repair, aphold, support, maintain, and keep the said messuage hereby “ demised, together with all marble and other window casements, shutters, “ doors, wainscots, &c., &c."
The lessor's surveyor claims to have all work previously grained and varnished, regrained and revarnished, but as these words are not specially mentioned, can the lessee be compelled to do it, beyond touching up and bringing forward the parts damaged and worn of the grained work ?
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 422, 423.) A wood in West Kent is the property of two separate owners, A and B, and is divided by a line of “stams” (there is neither hedge nor ditch). The ownership of the stams is in some doubt, but it is admitted by both owners in general terms that the “stams” form the boundary. The “stams” have been cut at intervals of about ten or twelve years for a considerable time past by A, and he claims them as his property. They have for many years been growing and increasing in diameter both in the direction of A's land and B's land, and are now very large. A now clairns that B's side of the “stams is the exact line of boundary following on his presumed ownership of the “stams,” the result of which is to make the boundary line continually but imperceptibly to grow with the
stams "into B's land. B disputes A's ownership of the “stams," but even if they do belong to A, or ownership be implied to him as having exercised acts of ownership on them (1) can A follow the ownership in that part of each “ stam " which has grown into B's land X (2) If the șide of the “stam” next to B's land was the boundary, can the growth of the “stams ” have the effect of shifting the boundary line of the land to the benefit of A and the loss of B ? (3) Through or along which part of the “stams” should the boundary line be drawn ? (4) What is the most effectual practical course to be taken by B to claim or define a more exact boundary line (considering that A will not meet him to discuss the subject and will do nothing in furtherance of a more exact definition of the boundary) and to prevent an assumed boundary line growing further into his (B's) land ?
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 423.) Has a “park " yet been defined in a court of law ? When appealing lately before an Assessment Committee in connection