to produce a nuisance in the Thames with an effluent only equal to Too part its volume, although the very same effluent would produce a nuisance in a small stream, as, indeed, has been proved at Leicester, Birmingham, Tottenham, and elsewhere, where treatment on the land has been found to be the only effective remedy. Tottenham may, perhaps, be an exception. It now discharges its sewage into the metropolitan system, having failed to produce an effluent sufficiently pure for the canalised portion of the Lee, into which it formerly passed. With regard to the question of self-purification of rivers, I think that this is, probably, best settled from the dissolved oxygen point of view; because organic matters are mainly broken up by minute organisms, of which there are two main families-one requiring oxygen for their subsistence, and breaking up organic matter into harmless mineral compounds and gases; the other, when the oxygen is used up, taking the place of the former, and carrying on the work of disintegration, but with the production of most offensively-smelling gases, which produce in certain cases an intolerable nuisance. Obviously, therefore, every effort should be made to prevent the undue abstraction of the dissolved oxygen in streams, by the pouring into them of impure liquids.

Massachusetts was referred to by the author, and I cannot too strongly express my admiration of the careful manner in which the experiments at that city have been carried out, and the really extraordinary results obtained by filtration through sand, when the best way of applying the sewage had once been ascertained. With regard to the Berlin sewage farm, the authorities of the city are evidently possessed of the usual astuteness of the Teuton, and have once for all solved the sewage problem, so far as Berlin is concerned, and this without wasting money on chemical processes and patent nostrums.

It would, of course, be rash to say that London sewage could with equal ease be disposed of on land, for many of the details differ; the sewage flow per head, for instance, is at Berlin only one-half that of London; and there are other circumstances to be considered before pronouncing a definite opinion. But at the same time, with land in Essex selling at £8 10s. per acre, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that London sewage could be applied to land without imposing a heavy burden upon the ratepayers. The cost of the present system is, for working expenses and chemicals and also sludge disposal, £110,000 per This sum capitalised would be upwards of 31 million sterling, with which much might be done in the direction of applying the sewage to the land, and producing practically the only crops that can now be profitably grown on a large scale in this country, namely, grass, rye-grass, and roots. A vast number of cows could then be kept, and London could itself produce much of the milk, butter, and cheese now obtained from the Continent.

annum.

It will be observed that Mr. CRIMP concurs in the opinion generally expressed at the meeting, that success in treating sewage depends on careful and skilful management. He also distinguishes between the effect of the state of purification of an effluent when discharged into a small stream, and that when it is poured into a large one. As assistant engineer to the London County Council, his remarks on the possibility of applying the sewage of London to land will be gratifying to those who maintain that disposal on land is the best solution of the question.

RICHARD F. GRANTHAM, Associate.

SECTION III.

PROFESSIONAL QUERIES.

Information is sought on the following points:

CXLVII.

DILAPIDATED FENCE-INJURY TO SHEEP-LIABILITY.
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 138, 139.)

A is the owner of a dilapidated fence separating his land from that belonging to B. B's sheep suffer damage from crossing and recrossing this fence. Can B obtain any redress as against A ?

CXLVIII.

SUPPORT RETAINING WALL-PUBLIC FOOTPATH.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 139-141.)

A road belonging to, and repairable by, the County Council runs past a garden, which at that point is some five or six feet below the level of the road. The road is kept in its place by a retaining wall, upon the top of which the fence wall of the garden is erected. Owing to heavy rains a portion of the retaining wall is undermined and collapses, bringing down with it a portion of the garden wall, and also part of the footway of the road. Whose duty is it to repair the damage as between the County Council and the owner of the garden, both as to the retaining wall and the garden wall erected upon it?

CXLIX.

UNEXHAUSTED IMPROVEMENTS.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 141-143.)

What are the respective rights and liabilities of

a. The landlord;

b. The representatives of the offgoing tenant;
c. The incoming tenant;

in the following case?—

A mixed farm of 142 acres, Statute measure, in Cheshine, in that portion of the county lying to the westward of the City of Chester, and known as the Hundred of Wirral, has descended in occupation from father to son unbrokenly for the last 50 or 60 years.

The tenancy has been an annual one, but no agreement is known to exist.

On the death of the last surviving son in July 1892, the executors requested the landlord to take the farm off their hands on the 2nd February, 1893, instead of requiring them to keep it on until the 2nd February, 1894, which would be the earliest time that they could give it up by twelve months' notice; the Cheshire day of entry being the 2nd February for the land, and the 1st May for the house, buildings and boozey pasture or outlet.

The landlord consented, and advertised the farm to be let by tender, as from the 2nd February, 1893. Several offers were received, and eventually one was accepted at some five or six shillings an acre increase on the rent paid by the deceased tenant.

On the 25th November, 1892, the executors held a sale of the deceased tenant's stock, implements, and effects, also hay, straw, and other produce, and, amongst other things, sold off the manure lying in the midden, which realised about £15. The landlord objected, but ultimately allowed it to be sold on the understanding that the amount was to be refunded if it was shewn the executors had no right to sell it. About 20 acres of the farm are in clover root which they arrange with the incoming tenant to pay for.

They then on the 8th and 23rd February, 1893, claimed from the landlord the following, as unexhausted improvements:

The £18 claimed for cake is stated to be one-half the amount paid for that article by the late tenant during the last two years of the tenancy.

In like manner the amount claimed for bones is stated to be onehalf the amount paid for that article by the late tenant during the seven years of the tenancy ending with 1892.

The £30 claimed for draining is made up at an estimated cost for cutting of £3 an acre, from which the executors deduct £1 an acre for benefit received, leaving £2 per acre to be charged on the 15 acres which were drained.

The landlord found the pipes.

The landlord contends that the executors ought not to have sold the manure, but to have left it for the incoming tenant. They contend

that by the custom of the country they were entitled to it, and many instances can be cited where the outgoing tenant has sold the manure to the incoming tenant, but not to an outside buyer.

No restriction was placed on the deceased tenant against selling off produce, but he was expected to bring back an equivalent in manure, and did so. Some portion of the manure in the midden, therefore, had not been made directly on the farm, and the executors urge this as an additional reason why they should be allowed to sell it.

The incoming tenant requires from the landlord an equivalent for the manure sold off by the executors of the outgoing tenant, and also the consuming value (which he places at one-third of the market value) of the whole produce of the farm sold off during the last twelve months of the tenancy.

It should be stated that no notice of any claim was given by the executors to the landlord, as required by Section 7 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, and that the determination of the tenancy was by mutual consent, and not by effluxion of notice to uit.

CL.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT-CLAIM FOR IMPROVEMENTS.

For Replies to this Query, see pp. 143, 144.)

If a tenant only gives notice of claim for improvements under the 1883 Agricultural Holdings Act to the agent and not to the landlord, does this vitiate the claim?

CLI.

RIGHT OF WAY.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 144, 145.)

A is owner of a field which abuts on a highway (public). More than 20 years ago he bought two more fields, to which there was a right of road across B's land from an occupation lane, this being the only road the owner of the two fields had.

Since the purchase the fences dividing the two fields from A's other field have become practically extinct; but have never been grubbed up.

The gate and posts still remain, opening from one field into B's land, and, in the case of the other, the posts are in, but the gateway is walled up.

(1) Has A lost his right of road across B's land by allowing his fences to fall down?

(2) Does the fact of gateposts being left in, but walled up, maintain the right of road?

There is no dispute between A and B, but A's tenant wants to wall up the gateways, and says A has lost his right.