Urban districts having been set out with the approval of the Local Government Board, do not as a rule require to be subdivided, and I take it do not find the power worth the trouble and intricacy involved, but use Section 148 or 150.

GEORGE E. PYM, Fellow.

B.

There is no power under Section 277 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to form special drainage districts for urban authorities, but Section 211 (4) of the same Act appears to have a similar effect; it provides as follows:

“The urban authority may divide their district or any street therein "into parts for all or any of the purposes of this Act, and from time to "time abolish or alter any such divisions, and may make a separate assesment on any such part for all or any of the purposes for which the same is formed," &c., &c.

66

ROBERT M. CHART, Fellow.

Replies to Query CCCCVI. (Vol. VIII., p. 505).

RAILWAY COMPANY'S CLAIM TO LAND PURCHASED FOR APPROACH

TO BRIDGE.

A.

The question seems to be one for legal advice rather than for a surveyor's opinion.

It seems to me that a good deal would depend upon the nature of the occupation by J's tenant, and whether the strip in question has been cultivated by him or has been merely waste land.

In any case, J cannot show a title which would satisfy an intending purchaser. As the strip of land is stated to be a slope affording the support (to which the railway company are entitled) for the road, it is presumably not of great value.

On the whole I consider the company would be successful in their claim.

A. J. BURROWS, Fellow.

B.

The company are stated to have bought the land. Obviously they required it for raising the road, and, being an over road, are liable for the maintenance of it. The slope is necessary for the support of the road, and, whether enclosed at the foot or not, is part and parcel of its structure.

It is difficult to see, therefore, under what principle it could pass to the adjoining owner, or that "limitation" would in any way apply to the case. My reply, therefore, to the question is that the land has never passed out of the railway company's possession.

S. B. SAUNDERS, Fellow.

C.

The strip of land B being required for and used in connection with the railway, that is the slope of the road. J, the owner of the adjoining plot, cannot have acquired a right in the soil. He may have obtained a right of user over it, but such user must not be exercised in any way inconsistent with the use to which it is devoted by the railway company, that is, he could not remove the slope or prevent the company from entering to repair same.

W. H. ELWELL, Fellow.

D.

Certainly. The company bought it for the purposes of Section 46 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, under which they are perpetually liable to maintain the approaches to the over bridge, of which the retaining slope is an essential part. The company need not fence (save as against the line), nor need they let it, nor are they bound by the imagination of J's tenant. How can J sell land to which he has not even a possessory title ?

LEONARD P. HODGE, Fellow.

(Reply to Query CCCCVII. Vol. VIII., p. 506).

THE HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890.

A.

I do not find anything in the Act 53 and 54 Vict., cap. 70, which would lead me to suppose that such a claim could be made with success.

Parts only of the London County Council's Acts are incorporated with this Act, which it must be remembered applies to properties and districts which have been condemned as insanitary. The mode of valuing the property is strictly limited in Section 21 to the bare value of the property after a deduction has been made of the cost of putting it in repair, and without any amount being added for compulsory taking. I don't think, therefore, that a claim would be considered, and I have not heard of such having been made in Manchester.

JNO. HOLDEN, Fellow.

If the proceedings are under Part I. of the Act, and the premises are within an insanitary area, Section 21 (a) provides in effect that no additional allowance shall be made to the owner for compulsory purchase.

If the proceedings are under Part II., by Section 41 no allowance is to be made to the owner for compulsory purchase, and a deduction is to be made— Section 41 (2) (b))—in respect of increased value to other premises belonging to him by the alterations or demolition.

T. DE COURCY MEADE, Fellow.

SECTION IV.

LAW CASES.*

(852.)

[QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.]

THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY r. THE LLANDUDNO IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS.

[DECEMBER 5TH, 1896.]

(A previous short report of this case was published on p. 203, ante.) Local Government-Rating-Land used as a Railway-Llandudno Improvement Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 102), s. 68.

By the Llandudno Improvement Act, 1854, which authorised commissioners to make annually a general improvement rate upon all property for the time being liable to be rated to the relief of the poor, it was provided that "the occupier of any land used only . . . . as a railway" should be assessed in the proportion of one-fourth part only of its net annual value.

Held, that the platforms at a railway station and the roof covering the railway, the platforms, and the sidings might be rated as land used only as a railway under this provision.

Case stated by consent.

The appellants, the London and North Western Railway Company, are the owners and occupiers of a branch railway from Llandudno Junction to Llandudno, with its appurtenances, and a terminal station at Llandudno, which was constructed partly on land acquired under the powers of the St. George's Harbour Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 213), and partly on land acquired under subsequent Acts obtained by the appellants.

The respondents, the Llandudno Improvement Commissioners, were incorporated by the Llandudno Improvement Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 102), and for the purposes of this case the railway and the Llandudno station are within the limits of that Act.

By Section 67 of that Act the respondents were empowered to make

This Section is intended primarily as a clue only to Reported Cases.

annually a rate or assessment, to be called the General Improvement Rate upon, all lands, estates, and property of every sort, kind, or description, for the time being liable to be rated to the relief of the poor within the limits of the Act according to the annual value of the same.

By Section 68 of the Act, "The owners and occupiers of houses, buildings, court-yards, and gardens, and all other property, shall be rated at the full net annual value of the same, provided always that the occupier of any land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only, or as woodlands, market-gardens, or nursery-grounds, and the occupier of any land covered with water, or used only as a canal or towing-path for the same, or as a railway constructed under the powers of any Act of Parliament for public conveyance, shall, so far as respects the said General Improvement Rate, be assessed in respect of the same in the proportion of onefourth part only of such net annual value thereof."

By Section 79, " And whereas the St. George's Harbour Company are or are about to become the owners and occupiers of land within the limits of this Act to be used for the purposes of their undertaking, be it enacted that nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice, lessen, or defeat the rights or interests of the said St. George's Harbour Company otherwise than by this Act expressly provided, and that the said company shall in respect of the railway works and property of the said company within the limits aforesaid be rated as follows: The line of railway (when constructed) for rating purposes shall be considered as agricultural, and shall be valued and rated in the same manner and proportion as the land abutting on each side of the line within the limits of the Act, and the station, buildings, and other hereditaments shall be rated in the same manner as other houses, buildings, and hereditaments within the limits of this Act are to be rated for the purposes of the Act."

On July 4, 1894, the respondents made a general improvement rate, in which they rated at their full net annual value, not only the station buildings, including waiting-rooms, offices, coal-sheds, stables, and goodssheds belonging to the appellants, as to which there was no dispute, but also the roof, platforms, sidings and other matters and things set out in the schedule to the case.

The appellants contended that this property ought, on the true construction of the Llandudno Improvement Act, to have been valued as agricultural land, and rated in the proportion of one-fourth of such value, or in the alternative at one-fourth of the full net annual value of such property.

The schedule to the case was as follows:

(1.) Roof covering railway; (2.) Roof covering platform; (3.) Roof covering cab-drive; (4.) Roof covering sidings; (5.) Roof covering buildings; (6.) Platform under roof; (7.) Platforms uncovered; (8.) Cab-drive under roof; (9.) Cab-drive and horse-landing uncovered; (10.) Cattle-landing and pens; (11.) Crane in goods-yard; (12.) Signalboxes and appurtenances; (13.) Engine turn-table; (14.) Sidings and land.

It was agreed that items 1 to 11 were to be taken as being on land