B.

I do not see how A and B can have any claim in respect of outlay incurred, not by them, but by a previous tenant, and am of opinion that the umpire's decision is wrong.

ROBT. F. STURGE, Fellow.

C.

I think it neither legal nor just.

The terms of submission to the umpire should have been stated, as they may possibly contain something which prejudices the position of the Lady Day, 1895, tenant; but if this is not so he cannot be liable to pay A and B any compensation for cake and corn consumed, either during their occupation or the previous tenant's. If any one is to pay them it is the landlord, and how can they possibly make a legal claim against him for cake and corn consumed by the previous tenant for which they have not paid, but which the landlord himself has paid, or in some way given compensation.

L. BURD, Fellow.

D.

Referring to the last paragraph of inquiry under this head, the claim is certainly not "just," and this being the case, it ought not to be "legal."

To a certain extent A and B would use cake and corn for their own benefit during their exceptional one year's tenancy, and the further compensation (or its equivalent) to which they might, under ordinary circumstances, have been entitled, by claim on the owner or incoming tenant, they already had by entering and occupying for the year free of payment for unexhausted manurial value left by the preceding tenant-and also by the reduction of £150 in the rent, and freedom from rates and taxes for that year. It is stated the special agreement provides that A and B were not to pay for manurial values on entry, and there ought to have been an understanding they should not, in like manner, claim on leaving at the end of the year. Apart from this, they probably considered they could legally claim under the Act, and the umpire felt they were within their rights in doing so.

As a matter of strict justice, if it is fair that the tenant entering in 1895 should pay for unexhausted values, the amount should go to the owner, who no doubt compensated (or lost by) the tenant who preceded A and B, and accepted reduced terms for the one year's occupation by them.

J. W. FAIR, Fellow.

E.

A and B having paid no compensation for unexhausted improvements

to their predecessor, I cannot see that there is any foundation for their claim on account of improvements executed before the commencement of their tenancy.

W. MACCRACKEN, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCXCVII. (Vol. VIII. p. 21.)

TITHE RENT-CHARGE-SUB-DIVISION OF LANDS-APPORTIONMENT.

A.

I am of opinion that the factor of the £16 must be taken, giving about £5 as mentioned, of course, assuming that the rateable value is in accordance. "Rateable value," I cousider, means present rateable value,

and applies.

Where part of a tenement has been built on, and 2 acres out of the 80 acres have produced an enormous increment of rateable value, viz., £150, as against an otherwise £2 10s., I consider these houses must not be taken as a guide for rent-charge as tithe is on the land and not on the houses. The tithe here amounts to 58. per acre or 10s. for the two acres. E. LYWOOD, Fellow.

B.

In order to reply to the Questions it is necessary to define the meaning of the word "lands."

Under the provisions of the "Tithe Act 1891," the expression " tithe "rent-charge" means tithe rent-charge issuing out of lands and payable in pursuance of the Tithe Acts.

Tithe rent-charge, payable under the Tithe Acts, is payable in commutation of the tithe of the produce of the soil.

Therefore the expression "lands" means lands bearing titheable produce, and does not include houses and buildings.

Question 1. Does the rateable value mean the present rateable value? Answer. Yes, the present rateable value of the lands, exclusive of houses and buildings.

Second Question. Does this apply?

1. Where part of a tenement has been improved since the Tithe Act 1836 and prior to 1891 ?

Yes, certainly.

2. Where part of a tenement has been built on under similar conditions?

No; the tithe rent-charge is chargeable on the land, and not on the houses and buildings erected thereon.

WM. STURGE, Past President.

C.

In my opinion, the division in the first case would be as set out in the example, but in the second case, the value of the lands would have to be separately ascertained, and, for the landlord's reapportionment purposes, the rateable value of the houses must be omitted. The re-iteration of the word "lands," in the clause cited seems to imply this construction. J. H. H. SABIN, Professional Associate.

D.

Sec. 1 (2) of the Tithe Act, 1891, would seem to be intended to provide, in cases where there was no provision in the agreements or leases and until a proper altered apportionment could be made by the owners of the land in the regular manner, a ready means of arriving at the contributions that the several occupiers should make on an estate that was subdivided but charged in the Instrument of Apportionment with one amount of tithe rent-charge.

In practice I think it is improbable that the cases are numerous in which it would be necessary to have recourse to this mode of procedure, but, where no other plan of apportionment is available and the division has to be made in accordance with this section, there can be little doubt that the sub-division must be made in the manner suggested, with the somewhat startling results indicated; and that the occupier of the 50 acres in the first example would be liable to pay the value according to the corn averages for the year of the £5, and the occupiers of the houses in the second example, the value of £12 of the £20 commuted tithe rent-charge. The rateable value can only mean the present rateable value.

HARLEY M. GRELLIER, Fellow.

Reply to Query CCXCVIII. (Vol. VIII. p. 22).

ASSESSMENT.

No. 1. The owner, in such a case, stands in the position of occupier and can insist on a sub-division, but the net result would be about the same, as the same rate of deduction from gross to rateable would not be allowed.

No. 2. With regard to question No. 2, if a caretaker is in charge of a warehouse, a librarian of an Institute, a manager of a bank, or a stationmaster of a railway station, and there is internal communication between the caretaker's portion of the premises and the remainder of them, that fact would render the whole building liable to Inhabited House Duty. See assessed taxes, cases on appeal, Nos. 2,687, 2,689, 2,642.

I know of a railway company where all the station-masters had, at one time, their living rooms permanently shut off internally from the rest of the station building, of booking office, waiting rooms, &c., and this rule is now generally observed.

W. G. COOKE, Professional Associate.

Replies to Query CCXCIX. (Vol VIII. p. 22.)

AGRICULTURAL HOLDING-NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR MANURE, &c.

A.

By Section 7 of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, “a "tenant claiming compensation under this Act shall, two months at least "before the determination of the tenancy, give notice in writing to the "landlord of his intention to make such claim."

In re Paul, ex parte Earl of Portarlington (L.R., Q.B.D., vol. xxvi. page 247, also see Professional Notes, vol. iv., section iv., page 155), it was held that the "determination of the tenancy" took place when the tenant's holding under the custom of the country ended; and therefore a claim or compensation given two months before that time was good.

I should say that the notice of claim in this case was good if the outgoing tenant could hold over any part of the land until July after the alleged expiration of the tenancy. This case I believe has not been

overruled.

CHARLES BIDWELL, Fellow.

B.

The decision in Queen's Bench in Paul v. Lord Portarlington applies to this case. The notice of claim will therefore be good as it was given more than two months before the final quitting or "the end of the tenants holding of the whole of the land." The case has not been upset by any subsequent decisions.

The notice of claim is applicable to the whole of the holding.

F. PUNCHARD, Fellow.

C.

I do not think the claim good unless possibly to the lands held over It might be urged that the tenancy of these lands was not terminated until the tenant actually gave them up, but if so the claim must apply only to these lands and not to any of the lands already given up.

I am not aware of the case mentioned, was it anything more than a county court case?

J. W. WILLIS BUND, Associate.

D.

The tenant holds under a lease for a term of years, his tenancy expiring by effluxion of time, which in this case is July, 1896. The tenant pays rent for the entire period, hence his notice of claim served on the

30th April, 1896, is a legal notice entitling him to the usual compensation for cake and manures used on the land, except in the case of artificial manures after which a corn crop has been taken.

GILBERT MURRAY, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCC. (Vol. VIII., p. 22).

LONDON BUILDING ACT, 1894.-REBUILDING STABLE.-NOTICE TO

ADJOINING OWNERS.

A.

The questioner quotes the "sub-section," but not the section. I presume he means Section 87, Sub-section 6. He gives no material for the formation of an opinion as to where the boundaries between the site of his stable and the adjoining lands may run. Of this there may be other evidence than the buildings and walls or fences. But presuming that the walls of the stable belong wholly to it, and the adjoining owners have no interest in them, then it will be seen on perusing the heading of Section 87 that that section and its sub-sections do not apply, the very first words being "Where lands of different owners adjoin and are unbuilt on at the line of junction," &c. Assuming the stable walls to be wholly the property of the owner of the stable and the footings to be easements on the adjoining land, he may, without notice, rebuild the stable, including the footings, but may not erect scaffold on adjoining lands without adjoining owners' permission, nor may he commit other trespasses. It must not,

however, be assumed too hastily that the stable walls belong wholly to the owner of the stable. It may be that old party-fence-walls were raised upon when the stable was originally constructed. This should be ascertained.

ARTHUR HARSTON, Fellow.

B.

I do not consider that Section 87 is intended to apply to such a case. It relates to lands of different owners which adjoin, and are unbuilt on at the line of jurction.

C. HERBERT BEDELLS, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCCI. (Vol. VIII. p. 22).

LONDON BUILDING ACT 1894-"WORKING CLASSES "-DEFINITION.