Replies to Query CCCLXXV. (Vol. VIII., p. 404).

LEASE-REPAIRING COVENANT-REPAINTING.

A.

Graining is only painting with certain designs worked on the paint while wet, and supposed to make the wood beneath represent some other wood. It is nevertheless merely painted woodwork.

Under the covenant quoted the lessor would be entitled to have the grained portions painted once in every seventh year, but not necessarily to have it regrained or varnished.

J. H. REDMAN, Associate.

B.

I do not think that in the face of a distinct covenant to "paint with two coats of good oil paint," without any mention of graining and varnishing, a lessee could be compelled to regrain and varnish. It might be contended that graining and varnishing were merely the particular mode of finishing paint work previously adopted in the premises, and that a lessee was bound to finish work in the same manner as that in which it had been finished when his tenancy began; but I do not think that view could be maintained in a court of law, having regard to the lenient view of the effect of repairing covenants which appears to be usually adopted, and also to the fact that fashion has changed, and graining is no longer almost universal in certain classes of buildings.

HOWARD MARTIN, Fellow.

C.

I am of opinion that the lessor cannot claim for regraining and varnishing the woodwork, but only for plain painting, as described in the covenant. PHILIP E. PILDITCH, Fellow.

D.

The covenant as to inside painting is specific, viz. two coats of good oil paint, and in the absence of a clause to grain and varnish, I am of opinion no claim for such work can be maintained. Two coats of good oil paint will satisfy the covenant, but touching up and bringing forward the grained work will not do so.

W. BENNETT ROGERS, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCCLXXVI. (Vol. VIII., p. 405).

WOODLAND BOUNDARY.

A.

"Stams" or "back-stems" form a very common and convenient boundary in woodlands in Kent and adjoining counties. The true boundary is, in my opinion, from the centre of one "stam" to the centre of the next, and I consider that A, an adjoining owner, could not interfere if the one-half of the "stam" was cut away by B, the owner on the other side, notwithstanding that the "stams" had been from time to time cut by A.

DANIEL WATNEY, Past President.

B.

In reply to the questions asked in this matter

1. No.

2. No.

3. Through the pith.

4. Where the "stams" form the boundary, either of the adjoining owners is entitled to cut them to within three feet of the ground. If the value of the land makes it worth while, B should exercise acts of ownership both on the land between the "stams" and on the "stams " themselves, and leave A to take action.

R. W. CLUTTON, Fellow.

C.

A boundary line is definite, and not indefinite, as it would be if A'sclaim were admitted. If the "stams" were mutually agreed upon in the past as forming the boundary of the estates, it may, I think, be assumed that the centre of the "stams was the exact line of demarcation, and that the "stams were looked upon as common property. A may have acquired, by act of ownership, a right in the growth, but such right will not extend to the "stam," which must remain common. To claim a boundary line which extends daily by growth of a plant upon a neighbour's land is absurd. My answer, therefore, to the querist is :

(1) A can only "follow the ownership" in the growth from the "stam" if he has acquired such a right.

(2) Certainly not.

(3) The centre of growth, or the tap-root, if any.

(4) To dig a ditch on his own land to the extreme limit as marked by the centre of growth (which might necessitate grubbing); or, erect a fence on the boundary line as marked by the centre of growth, and thusthrow the onus of proof on A.

C. E. CURTIS, Fellow.

D.

1. Decidedly not.

2. No, the boundary line cannot move.

3. The centre.

4. B should at once cut off the growth on his half of the " stams," even if there is only one year's shoot, for the sake of establishing his claim.

The centre of the "stams" is undoubtedly the boundary in spite of A's having been allowed to cut the whole of them for some time past.

The idea of a moving boundary constantly encroaching upon B's property is simply preposterous. Supposing A and B were on friendly terms, they would either halve the growth on the " stams or cut alternate -ones, but as A is so unreasonable there is nothing for it but for B to show him plainly that he is owner of half of each "stam." Assuming for the sake of argument that the "stams" had been originally planted just inside A's boundary (which is most improbable), directly they began to grow B might cut off any part of them which spread on to his land.

EVELYN STUART SEYMOUR.

Replies to Query CCCLXXVII. (Vol. VIII., p. 405).

DEFINITION OF "PARK."

A.

"Park" has an established definition as old as our sources of legal wisdom, and settled when "noble and princely pleasures of sport" were amongst the highest franchises to be safeguarded. Coke says: "In law it signifieth a great quantity of ground inclosed, privileged for wild beasts of chase by prescription, or by the king's grant." (Co. Litt. 233a.) Blackstone is a little more explicit: "Park properly signifies an inclosure; but yet it is not every field or common which a gentleman pleases to surround with a wall or paling and to stock with a herd of deer that is thereby constituted a legal park; for the king's grant, or at least immemorial prescription, is necessary to make it so. Though now the difference between a real park and such enclosed grounds is in many respects not very material." (2 Bl. Com. 38.) I am not aware of any reported decision of authority as to the meaning of the word in the 9th Section of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896.

J. H. REDMAN, Associate.

B.

I know of no reported case in which the term "park," as used in the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, has been considered. It is, of course, possible that there has been a decision on the point, but, if so, the case appears to have escaped the notice of the reporters.

WALTER C. RYDE, Associate.

Replies to Query CCCLXXVIII. (Vol. VIII. p. 406).

NEW DRAINAGE SYSTEM-LIABILITY OF OWNERS.

A.

I know of no decision compelling owners to alter fittings so long as the said fittings are in good working order. I do, however, remember reading in a daily paper, some two years since, that a summons had been taken out in a metropolitan court, and that the magistrate dismissed it with the common-sense remark that if such a thing were to be allowed, every fresh inspector or sanitary committee would be at liberty to force their particular "fads" upon the owners of property, and that without rhyme or reason.

B.

C. JONES, Fellow.

I know of none; but in the case of a nuisance the Sanitary Authority exercises power under the Public Health Acts.

C. H. LOWE, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCCLXXIX. (Vol. VIII., p. 406).

COMBINED DRAINAGE-PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY OF different

LESSEES.

A.

These matters are generally settled by arrangement between the parties, otherwise the statutes can only compel each house to keep in proper order the portion of drain within its own boundaries.

WM. WEAVER, Fellow.

B.

In answering the above query, I assume that the pipes were not laid under the order of any Vestry or District Board, or with sanction or approval of Commissioners of Sewers, &c. (see Section 250, 18 and 19 Vict. c. 120, and Section 112, 25 and 26 Vict. c. 102). If so, as the law at present stands with respect to combined drainage, the pipe passing under No. 3-B's house-has been decided by the Superior Courts to be a sewer; the pipes appertaining to Houses 1, 2, 4, and 5 are house drains to their junction with the sewer of House No. 3. The owners of Houses 1, 2, 4, and 5 are not legally liable for any expenses in making good defects to the sewer, and I have grave doubts whether B cannot require the Sanitary Authority to execute the necessary works at its own cost.

H. H. COLLINS, Fellow.

Replus to Query CCCLXXX. (Vol. VIII., p. 407).

LANDLORD AND TENANT-FURNISHED HOUSE.

A.

In the absence of a special covenant on the part of A to sweep the chimneys and take up and beat the carpets at the end of the tenancy, it would not be customary to claim for his doing so unless the carpets were left in a dirty state beyond what would be covered by the term "fair wear and tear," and it could be proved that the chimneys had not been kept swept at the proper times according to their use.

W. H. WARNER, Fellow.

B.

The answer is based on first impression rather than actual decision, since the point is too small to have engaged the attention of the High Court, though there may have been decisions in the County Court. The agreement being to keep the premises and effects clean and so leave them, the obligation would be construed by reference to no narrower test than their condition at the time the tenant entered. I think, therefore, that he would be liable for the matters mentioned.

J. H. REDMAN, Associate.

C.

In my opinion, under the terms of the agreement as stated, A can be charged for sweeping the chimneys and also for taking up and beating the carpets.

HOWARD CHAT FEILD CLARKE, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCCLXXXI. (Vol. VIII., p. 407).

LANDLORD AND TENANT-REPAIRS.

A.

66

It is difficult to discuss the question at length within the space afforded by the reply pages of the Professional Notes. Repair" in the agreement will bear about the same meaning as good repair," "tenantable repair," "habitable repair." Less, rather than more, than those expressions import. The claim for papering and painting can only be sustained if the condition of the work is such as a reasonably-minded tenant, of the class usually occupying such premises, would require to be done, i.e. reasonably require it, or if its condition is causing structural defect. Proudfoot v. Hart, Professional Notes, vol. iv. p. 246. L. R., Q. B. D., Vol. xxv. p. 42. The tenant is certainly liable for any damage he may