farm is now pasturing the whole of his 65 acres, and purchasing the whole of his hay for his large stock of cows, using all or nearly all the manure produced by this heavy stock on his own farm, now exclusively pastured. The landlord is somewhat apprehensive as to his position under the Act if the tenant should obtain a farm better suited for his purpose, and on leaving claim heavily and disproportionately for feeding stuffs and unexhausted manures. The Act evidently did not contemplate and does not appear to provide for an extraordinary instance of this kind, but it would only be reasonable to assume that its general provisions would not unfairly apply to a case where the ordinary methods of farming suitable for a self-contained holding have been departed from for the tenant's sole and special advantage. CCCLXXXVII, TITHE RENT-CHARGE. (For Replies to this Query, see pp. 431, 432.) A takes a lease of a farm for a long term of years; he underlets to B in 1887, who covenants to pay all rates, taxes, and outgoings whatsoever. B in turn again underlets the farm to C, who is the occupier. Since the Tithe Act, 1891, the freeholder has demanded the tithe from A, who has paid it at the same time as the rent. Can A recover the amount he has paid from B under the covenant in the lease, and, generally, what is the position looking at the Act, as to one owner recovering from another? CCCLXXXVIII. QUANTITIES-MEASUREMENT OF GLAZED BRICKWORK. (For Replies to this Query, see pp. 432, 433.) (A) Is it customary to measure square angles to reveals and quoins in glazed brickwork as an extra at per foot lineal? (B) If not, is there any reason for bull-nose angles being measured, considering that the price of square and bull-nose angle bricks is the same ? (c) Is there any reason (apart from custom) why either square or bullnose angles should be measured as extra, considering that the additional cost of the bricks is more than compensated for by the 44 inches measured on the return? A 55' CCCLXXXIX. PUBLIC STREET-RIGHT OF FREEHOLDERS TO LESSEN WIDTH. STREET A STREET (1.) The land marked A comprises one estate situate within the metropolitan area. The houses fronting on the street B B are very old, the leases falling in in a few years' time. The present width of the street B B is 65 feet in the clear—unnecessarily wide considering the small amount of traffic that passes along it. The freeholders are preparing a scheme for rebuilding, and propose lessening the width of the street B B to 55 feet, as shown by dotted lines (i.e. the same width as the two side streets now are), so as to give greater depth for building on the block A'. Is there anything in the Building or Metropolis Management Acts, &c., to prevent the freeholders so lessening the width of the street, bearing in mind that it would still be 15 feet wider than the width stipulated in the Acts for new streets, viz. 40 feet? It should be mentioned that all the streets shown are repairable by the Vestry. (2.) Is it not a fact that although a street may be repairable and taken over by the Vestry, the soil still remains vested in the freeholders; and would not this fact enable them to lessen the width of the street as above mentioned, provided they did not otherwise contravene any of the Acts or by-laws relating thereto? CCCXC. CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE ACT, 1890, SECTION 26— A building has recently been erected in accordance with the London Building Act, 1894, and all existing Acts relating to buildings, and consists of six small-class flats. Each room, staircase, &c., has a window opening direct on to a 40-ft. road, and a door opening on to a passage. Upon applying to the medical officer of health for the district for a certificate as required by the above Act where exemption from Inhabited House Duty is claimed, on the ground that the premises are "so constructed as to afford suitable accommodation for each of the families or persons dwelling therein, and that due provision is made for their sanitary requirements," he refuses the same, giving as his reason that there in no through ventilation. Is the medical officer justified in refusing to grant the certificate? and if not, what steps would have to be taken to compel him to do so? CCCXCI. AGRICULTURAL HOLDING-OUTGOING TENANT-RIGHT TO BREAK UP PASTURE. (For Replies to this Query, see p. 433.) A tenant of a farm of 150 acres is leaving. He took the farm in 1878 on a yearly agreement. About 1880 some 25 acres of arable land was planted with "seeds" in the ordinary course (not permanent grass seeds), and they have not since been broken up, and the land has run to a very fair pasture. In 1883 the owner died and his son came into possession. The tenant then applied for a re luction of rent, and was granted a permanent reduction of 20 per cent., or £50. It was mentioned at this time that this land was not worth breaking up, but there was no agreement not to break up. The tenant is now leaving the farm, and claims the right to break up these 25 acres of pasture unless compensated for the same. Has the tenant any such right? If so, what should be the basis of awarding compensation? The farm is in Devonshire. There is nothing in the written agreement in reference to this point. CCCXCII. RATING OF SANDPITS. (For Replies to this Query, see p. 434.) In estimating the rateable value of sandpits where the method adopted is to deduct from the gross receipts the working expenses, tenants' profits, rates and taxes, &c., would the cost of advertising (by which means the gross receipts are greatly increased) be considered an allowance in "work"ing expenses as well as salaries and expenses of clerks, travellers, &c.? REPLIES.* Reply to Query CCCXXXIX. (Vol. VIII., p. 272). BUILDING ACT, 1894-PARTY-WALL NOTICE. Vide the following in The Builder: Editorial article entitled "Adjoining Owners under Metropolitan Letter from Mr. Howard Chatfeild Clarke, F.S.I., headed “Adjoin- Letter from A. and C. Harston, headed “Adjoining Owners under This volume of The Builder is in the library of the Institution. Paper on Party-walls by Mr. C. H. Bedells, Fellow, vol. xxiv. p. 65, Also Professional Notes, vol. v. part iii. p. 222: Short article by A. Harston on Mr. Bedells' able Paper. Although the writers of the above-indicated papers discuss the question under the old Act of 1855, the terms of the new Act, 1894, do not appear to make any difference, except in such cases as those in which the building owners act on consents of adjoining owners (instead of acting on awards), in which cases the consents of the occupiers are also necessary; but this point is, I observe, already in the questioner's mind. Notice having been served on D and his consent obtained, it is not necessary to serve notices on B and C. A has only to deal with D. Neither B nor C can prevent the work proceeding; their consent is not necessary, they have not to appoint surveyors, nor can their surveyors join in any award. In short, B and C have no locus standi. See the interpretation clause as to "owner," alike in both Acts; and the interpretation of "adjoining owner" in 1894 Act, a new interpretation. "Owner' shall apply to every person in possession or receipt "either of the whole or any part of the rents or profits," &c., meaning the rents or profits immediately arising out of the premises. D being occupier as well as lessee is in possession of the whole of the immediate profits, although not in receipt of them, and the fact that for this privilege he has to pay something annually to C by his contract of lease with C does not affect the question. It is desirable to state here, although not necessary for the elucidation of the question immediately under discussion, that " a tenant from year to year or for any less term, or a tenant at will," is by the interpretation clause of the Act excluded from the category of "owner." D is the statutory "adjoining owner," notwithstanding the fact that as * Replies must, in all cases, be authenticated by the name of the Member supplying the information asked for. between himself and C he is not responsible for such repairs as are necessitated by fair wear and tear. To make him "owner" it is quite sufficient that he is in possession of the rents or profits, and has a term superior to that of a tenant from year to year. D B and C are left by the Act to arrange with each other according to the nature of their respective contracts inter se. ARTHUR HARSTON, Fellow. Reply to Query CCCXLI. (Vol. VIII., p. 273). BUILDING LINE-CORNER SITE. I think the proper construction of Section 33 London Council (General Powers) Act, 1890 (now repealed), is that the superintending architect was bound to set out the general line of building in the side street as well as in the front street, with the exceptions (1) that if the frontage in the side street was already occupied with a building or was land held with a building at the time of the passing of the Act, then he was not bound to set out the general line of buildings in the side street, but only in the front street in which the house was (or was to be) situated; (2) if the side street had been laid out for building at the time of the passing of the Act, then again he was not bound to define the line in the side street. The said Act of 1890, above mentioned, is repealed by the Building Act, 1894, by which the superintending architect is to define the general building line in both front street and side street, and it is illegal to project beyond the building lines so defined. I do not think the owner of plot 4 had acquired any right or privilege to bring him within the purview of Section 215, Sub-section 2 (B), of the 1894 Building Act. Had he after the 1890 Act, and before the 1894 Act, occupied a part of the plot with a building projecting beyond the line of the other houses in the side street (which I presume is one of the lines defined as the "general building line" by the superintending architect), then I think he would have “acquired" a right or privilege to rebuild on that portion so built upon beyond the “general line of building "afterwards defined by the superintending architect. As to the question relating to the fine, I prefer to offer no opinion; it is scarcely a surveyor's question. Probably it is immaterial, as if my above-stated opinion be correct, the County Council have the alternative remedy of demolishing the illegal building. ARTHUR HARSTON, Fellow. Reply to Query CCCXLIV. (Vol. VIII., p. 275). USER OF WALL BY ADJOINING OWNER. I had an exactly similar case to this in London during the time the last Building Act was in force. The owner of the wall endeavoured, |