It is not stated what is the certain sum per foot frontage which the purchasers are to contribute towards the cost of the roads. This might, possibly, give some indication of the class of road intended.

EDWD. O. WELLS, Professional Associate.

Reply to Query CLIII. (Vol. VI., p. 134).

QUIT RENTS RECOVERY OF ARREARS.

(A.)

By Section 1 of 3 & 4 William IV., chap. 27, the word rent is declared to extend to all services and quits for which a distress may be made. Quit rents payable in respect of freehold lands were, before the passing of this Act, recoverable for an indefinite period; length of time did not raise the presumption in equity of an extinguishment. Under Section 34 of this Act the right to the rents is extinguished after the lapse of twenty years, excepting where the person entitled to the rents and profits is or has been under the following disabilities, infancy, coverture, lunacy, or absence beyond the seas, in either of which cases the period of recovery is extended to 40 years. The right of distraint has also been abolished. In order to test the legality of this case, give notice to the owner of the land of your desire to extinguish the manorial incident; at the ame time send a copy of the notice to the Land Office, with an indorsement thereon, stating when, upon whom, and how the notice was served. Quit rents are valued at 28 years' purchase.

GILBERT MURRAY, Fellow.

(B.)

1. The "quit" rent, or "free' rents as they are usually called on customary freeholds, can be distrained for as in the case of any other rent in arrear.

2. Six years.

3. I cannot refer to Owen v. De Beauvoir, but it cannot be a recent case, I think. Twelve years' non-payment is sufficient to spoil the lord's right of recovery of the rents, but not of a "relief" on the next surrender, if the property could be got into court. If the courts have been abandoned, the relief may be also past recovery.

J. HENRY SABIN, Professional Associate.

(c.)

Howitt v. Earl of Harrington (reported 22nd April, 1893, " Weekly Notes," 1893, page 66) decides that a quit rent, whether copyhold or freehold, becomes statute-barred after 12 years. In this case an action was successfully brought to restrain the lord from distraining for six years' quit rent, none having been paid for the last 15 years.

LEWIS WINCKWORTH, Associate.

Reply to Query CLIV. (Vol. VI., p. 134).

LANDLORD AND TENANT-NOTICE TO QUIT.

(A.)

A Michaelmas tenancy from year to year cannot be legally determined by notice dated 28th March for 29th September, i.e., such notice must be given not later than March 25th.

(B.)

F. K. MUNTON, Associate.

So far as I am aware the claim of the landlord in this case is quite new, and the custom relied on by the tenant well established and almost universally followed, i.e. the quarter days (whether Old Style or New Style is adopted in the leases or agreements) are the dates from or before which the required six months' notice should be given in any case, and so as to terminate on the same quarter day of the year from which the tenancy commenced.

This is so general a practice that until there is some well-established legal decision to the contrary, and I am not aware of any such, I should fear to act upon the landlord's contention in this case, and shall continue to follow the "custom " relied upon by the tenant.

Legal decisions do at times roughly disturb traditional practice," as in the case of Williams v. Bull, a party-wall practice, but these occasions are, happily, of rare occurrence.

(c.)

CHARLES K. BEDELLS, Fellow.

This question is fully answered in Woodfall's "Landlord and "Tenant" (see 14th edition, pages 363 and 364). The whole passage is too long to quote, but the following words occur:-" A notice served on "the 26th of March to quit on the 29th of September then next is "insufficient, although there are more than 183 days between the 26th "of March and the 29th of September."

And in Redman and Lyon's "Law of Landlord and Tenant (3rd ed., page 277) the following passage occurs:-"Unless by statute, "agreement, or local custom, some other period of notice is fixed, it "must be given a half-year at least before the determination of the tenancy. The half-year must not be merely six calendar months, "but, unless the tenancy commenced on one of the ordinary feast or quarter days, a full period of 182 days. If the tenancy commenced "on one of the ordinary feast or quarter days, the notice must be "from feast day to feast day, given on or before the quarter day next "but one before that on which it is to determine. Such a notice is "sufficient though less than a full half-year, and is required though "more than a full half-year. (See Morgan v. Davies, 3 C. P. D. 260 ; *26 W. R. 816.) "

P. F. TUCKETT, Professional Associate.

(D.)

The notice is not sufficient. The exact point was decided in 1878, in a case of Morgan v. Davies, L. R., 3 C. P. D., p. 260, viz., that a notice given on 26th March was no use, as it must run for a customary half-year, although there were 183 days between the date of the service of the notice and its proposed expiration on the 29th September.

LEWIS WINCKWORTH, Associate.

Reply to Query CLV. (Vol. VI., p. 135).

LANDLORD AND TENANT-RENT-DILAPIDATIONS.

(A.)

I do not think the receipt of the last quarter's rent would necessarily be a bar to the landlord's claim for dilapidations. The rent may have been paid prior to the landlord having an opportunity of ascertaining by a survey whether grounds for a claim existed. At the same time it is usual for a landlord, on receiving possession of premises upon the expiration of a lease (as to which nothing is said in the question), to do so, subject to any claim for dilapidations; though I do not think taking possession would of itself, or even conjointly with the receipt of rent, interfere, in most cases, with his right of action upon the covenant. P. E. PILDITCH, Fellow.

(B.)

I do not think the receipt will operate as a bar.

It is, however, I think, expedient to give such a receipt without prejudice to any claim for breach of covenants.

EDWD. O. WELLS, Professional Associate.

Reply to Query CLVI. (Vol. VI., p. 135).

WATER SUPPLY-CONSTANT SERVICE-NECESSITY FOR CISTERN.

(A.)

In reply to enquiry, it is doubtful whether a water company can, in cases of constant supply, under the Metropolis Water Act, 1871, compel an owner to have a cistern other than the waste preventer. The Act does not positively specify cisterns to be used, but evidently contemplates them, for it defines " fittings' to include "all pipes, cocks, cisterns, &c." And in the "Regulations" made under that Act, and confirmed by the Board of Trade on the 10th August, 1872 (a copy of which I enclose), section 13 specifies the "character of cisterns and ball-taps."

This, of course, only refers to London. It is possible that the company's private Act might give the power.

With regard to the latter part of the question, I should strongly advise owners in all cases to retain in use the existing cisterns, as in times of severe frost, or accident to the company's works, or shutting

down of mains to repair other people's pipes, &c., they afford a store of water, and enable consumers to avoid much expense and inconvenience.

To supply water for drinking purposes, draw-traps of the "screwdown" kind can, at a small outlay, be fixed on the rising lead pipe that feeds the cistern.

(B.)

WM. FREDK. HART, Fellow.

It will depend upon the terms of the special Act applicable to any particular case. As a rule there is no obligation on the part of the owner to provide a cistern where constant supply is required to be given, nor is there any obligation to do so by the General Waterworks Clauses Acts of 1847 and 1863, which are usually incorporated in private Water Acts.

(c.)

J. QUICK, Associate.

It is necessary that each house should have a cistern equal, at any rate, to a day's consumption, otherwise the premises would occasionally be without water, at times when mains are shut down for repairs, alterations, &c.

WM. WEAVER, Fellow.

Reply to Query CLVII. (Vol. VI., p. 135).

INFECTIOUS DISEASES ACT (1890)-COST OF DISINFECTING LIABILITY. The practice referred to is usually adopted by urban sanitary authorities, to my knowledge, but I believe there has been no superior court decision upon the subject.

P. E. PILDITCH, Fellow.

Reply to Query CLVIII. (Vol. VI., p. 135).

FARM TENANT-REFUSAL TO TAKE POSSESSION-LIABILITY TO

LANDLORD.
(A.)

Similar cases are frequently cropping up. The agreement between B the landlord and A a tenant-farmer appears to be verbal, and hence cannot be legally enforced. Even if in writing, the legality of the contract entirely depends upon the way in which it is drawn. In all cases under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, and generally, the award is made out to the owner and not to the occupier, who pays the owner the amount of the valuation on entry. So far B has conformed both with the law and the custom. A having failed or refused to take possession cannot be compelled to take up the award or pay the valuation. B is free to exercise all his rights of ownership by entering on the land and performing any act of husbandry, or even letting the

holding to a new tenant. The only course open to B is to enter an action against A for damages for breach of contract. Under the circumstances, the result would be open to doubt.

(B.)

GILBERT MURRAY, Fellow.

A great deal depends upon the agreement, and whether such agreement was properly signed. If this is all right, B can compel A to take up the valuation according to the custom of the country. It is safer (as is sometimes done) to insert a clause in the estate agreement to be signed by the incoming tenant stipulating that he agreed to pay the tenant's valuation claims awarded to the outgoer. I should say that B had better not enter upon the land to do the work specified.

WM. WRIGHT, Fellow.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-REPAIRS.

Reply to Query CLIX. (Vol. VI., p. 136).

1. Under the circumstances related in this case, I think the tenant is holding over after the expiration of a lease for years upon such terms of the former lease as are consistent with a yearly tenancy, and that the tenant is bound by the repairing covenants cited for the last two years of his tenancy.

2. I do not consider this covenant includes decorative painting, papering, and whitewashing.

3. The tenant would be liable to make good any damage or dilapidation to paint, paper, and whitewash, and only be bound to paint and paper so as to prevent the house falling to decay; but, if the whole premises were in good condition, he would only be liable to clean old paint and paper, and not to repaint or repaper.

It is not stated if the house is an old one or a new one, nor if there was a "reasonable wear and tear" clause.

W. BENNETT ROGERS, Fellow.

Reply to Query CLX. (Vol. VI., p. 136).

BURNT CLAY FOR FLOORS OF Cow BARTONS.

(A.)

Burnt clay may be used for the bottoms of cow bartons, but they would require frequent reparations and occasional renewals. Dig the clay in lumps, start a fire with wood, pack clay on by degrees, using some slack coal occasionally. Employ a skilled workman who will economise fuel.

Why not cover the yard with inexpensive roofing?

J. R. EVE, Fellow.