rent-charge if transferred to the renewal lease be legal? and, if not, can the lessor alter the rent so as to include tithe rent-charge?

Further, if this latter view is correct, should the tithe be computed as

apportioned or with averages?

CCCCI.

RIGHTS TO WATER-DAMMING UP ADIT-RIGHTS OF LORD OF MANOR.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 518.)

"A" is lord of the manor and owner of the mining right, but not of the surface. The inhabitants of a village have dammed up a disused head level (or adit), and from it convey the water to their houses. I take it they are liable for damage to the adit, but can the owner of the minerals and lord of the manor charge for the water?

CCCCII.

DITCHES ADJOINING MAIN ROADS.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 518, 519, 520.)

Does the onus of cleansing the ditches adjoining the main roads fall upon the adjoining landowners or on the County or District Councils in the event of the ditch conveying

1. Clean surface water only;

2. Sewage matter also from various landowners' houses, so that it

is becoming the main sewer?

The district is about six square miles and fairly populous. The watershed is towards a tidal river; both the surface water and also the sewage is conveyed in open ditches or watercourses alongside the main roads, which discharge through sluices into the river.

For a distance of half a mile from the river, and at right angles to it, the land is very flat, consequently little fall can be obtained in the ditches or watercourses; therefore it will be seen that the question of cleansing these ditches through the low-lying land is an important one, and also a costly one, on account of the frequency of the operation (practically every year)

SECTION.

< 250'>

2 Miles.

I ask these questions also in view of the fact that the County Council

River.

and District Councils now claim from fence to fence, and will not permit any roadside wastes to be enclosed. The District Council is only a rural

one.

CCCCIII.

GRAZING ROADSIDE WASTES.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 521.)

A farmer has been accustomed for many years to graze the grass sides of a main road with sheep. He has a man always in charge to drive them out of the way of anybody passing. These sides admittedly belong to his landlord, who lets them to him with his farm.

The County Council surveyor has served a notice on him to discontinue doing this, saying that the sheep stray and lie about on the metalled portion and kick up the stones, thus causing considerable injury to the road. He threatens him with proceedings under Section 25 of the Highway Act, 1864, and quotes the case of Golding v. Stocking.

1. Has any road authority power to stop the sides of the roads being grazed by the owner of the soil or his lessee?

2. Has the case of Golding v. Stocking any bearing on this matter?

CCCCIV.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-REMOVAL OF HOP MERCHANT'S

FIXTURES.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 522.)

Premises in London were let on lease to a hop merchant, who made alterations in some of the rooms, putting in glass roofs, &c., so that they could be used for show rooms; at the same time he put up show boards. The lease having expired, the lessee claims that he can remove the show boards as being his fixtures, but does not agree to reinstate the rooms, as he says he had the lessor's consent to make the alterations. I should be glad of an opinion as to whether he (the lessee) can remove the show boards, or whether they do not form landlord's fixtures.

If they are removed the rooms cannot be let for the same purpose unless new ones are put up by the lessor, and they cannot well be let for other purposes unless reinstated to their original condition. Is there any custom with regard to fixtures in this trade irrespective of this particular case?

The lessee also claims that he can take away a wood partition (with door) put up for the purpose of dividing one room into two distinct

rooms.

CCCCV.

SPECIAL DRAINAGE DISTRICT.-POWERS OF URBAN COUNCIL.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 522, 523.)

By the Public Health Act of 1875 a Rural District Council can form a special drainage district for purposes of charging special expenses re water and sewerage.

Have Urban Councils the power of forming special drainage districts after the manner of Rural Councils as per Section 277 Public Health Act

1875 ?

CCCCVI.

RAILWAY COMPANY'S CLAIM TO LAND PURCHASED FOR APPROACH TO BRIDGE.

J owns the plot of land marked A, and in 1852 sold to the railway company the portion marked B, for the construction of their line. The plot was never fenced off, no rent has been demanded and no acknowledgment made to the company for the land, and it has always been occupied by J's tenant and considered part of his holding. The land has now been sold for building upon, and the railway company claim the portion B, saying they "constructed the retaining slope to this road for which the company is liable, and this constitutes their user of the land." Is the railway company now entitled to claim the land?

CCCCVII.

THE HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890.

(For a Reply to this Query, see. pp. 524, 525.)

Is there anything in the provisions of this Act which prevents those owning and occupying business premises such as manufactories, works, &c., from claiming compensation for trade disturbance, when their premises are acquired under the compulsory powers of the Act by local authorities by reason of their being within an insanitary area?

I understand that the Act has been put into force in Manchester and Liverpool.

REPLIES.*

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

NEW DRAINAGE SYSTEM-LIABILITY OF OWNERS.

The case of The Vestry of St. Mary, Battersea, v. Hudson, a short account of which appeared in the Building News about two years ago, may be useful to the querist of the above.

"The defendant answered an adjourned summons at the instance of the "Vestry in respect of certain premises which were stated to be insanitary "by reason of the soil-pipe being improperly constructed and terminating "too close to one of the windows. The case was a test one under the "Public Health (London) Act, 1891.

"It was stated that the system of drainage had existed at the house for "twelve years, and was that of open soil pipes, devised and still used by "Mr. Norman Shaw, R.A. Although now tabooed by all metropolitan "sanitary authorities, when constructed it was in accordance with the "latest sanitary requirements. A similar system was in force at New "Scotland Yard. A well-known surveyor proved to having made an "examination of the soil-pipe, and having failed to discover the existence "of a nuisance. It was argued for the defence that the Vestry had "no power to interfere, as they had already sanctioned the existing system "of ventilation. Although medical scientific discovery had advanced, "the Vestry could not compel private owners to keep their property up to "the standard required by each new discovery. . . . . It was unfair to "place owners at the expense of alteration because the Vestry had got "hold of new sanitary notions. For the plaintiffs it was pointed out that "it was the duty of the sanitary authority to enforce necessary sanitary

....

* Replies must, in all cases be authenticated by the name of the Member supplying the information asked for.

66

requirements in the district over which they had jurisdiction. The "plaintiffs were unable to say that there was a nuisance, but a nuisance was likely to occur at any moment.

66

66

"Mr. Denman declined to hold that sanitary fittings were likely to produce a nuisance because they were not up to date in sanitary "science.

"If that contention were allowed, it would mean that all old fittings "would have to be pulled down and replaced. He dismissed the summons, "but nevertheless thought that a temporary imperfection in the pipe "should be remedied."

ROBERT MILNES, Professional Associate.

Reply to Query CCCLXXXIX. (Vol. VIII., p. 412).

PUBLIC STREET-RIGHT OF FREEHOLDERS TO LESSEN WIDTH.

1. I do not know of any clause in the Building or Metropolis Manage. ment Acts to prevent the freeholders lessening the width of the street.

2. The street BB has, however, been dedicated to the public, and so used by them. The Vestry have repaired and maintained it from time to time, and therefore the freeholders could not under the circumstances resume possession of the part over the statutory width of 40 feet.

3. The magistrates have power to close streets at the request of the freeholders owning both sides of the street, but whether they could close a portion, as shown in this instance, is a question.

MARTIN L. SAUNDERS, Fellow.

Reply to Query CCCXCI. (Vol. VIII., p. 413).

AGRICULTURAL HOLDING OUTGOING TENANT-RIGHT TO BREAK UP PASTURE.

C.

In the absence of an agreement in writing that the tenant will not break up the 25 acres of arable land seeded down as described, I am of opinion that the outgoing tenant is clearly within his rights in claiming to break up the field or demanding compensation for leaving it in rough pasture.

I have known many cases of this kind settled either by paying the original cost of the seeds or paying compensation at a maximum rate of 208. (twenty shillings) an acre, C. BIDWELL, Fellow.