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. WM. FREDK. HART, Fellow.

(B.)

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.

(B.)

Though I have not used clay burnt into ballast for cattle yards, the enquirer is undoubtedly correct in thinking it might with advantage, in the circumstances he describes, be so applied. It would be necessary to obtain the services of one accustomed to burn clay, when the price (exclusive of railway and lodging), slack being found by the employer, would be about 4d. per yard of burnt ballast; in cases where clay is very easily got I have known the price 24d. per yard, and up to 9d., in some instances. A novice setting to work would waste much slack and time, and probably fail. If desired, I could, I think, obtain enquirer the name and address of a man accustomed to the work, if this neighbourhood is not too far to get him from.

(c.)

HENRY DONNE, Fellow.

If the clay is thoroughly burnt, the floor of the "barton" would be improved, of course, but it would have to be calcined to a greater degree than is usual for use on land under cultivation. An intelligent brickmaker in my employ tells me that the best plan is to dig out and build up the clay in "walls" two to three feet high, a foot thick, and six to nine inches apart, forming apertures to act as flues in which the fuel should be placed—either coal or wood—a mixture of both being preferable. The flues should be covered over also with the clay, which, if moist, would dig out in lumps. If the fire breaks through the top, it should be damped down with more clay; and if the burning goes on too freely, one or both ends of the flue should be stopped up in order that the work should be more effectual. If burned to the requisite degree, the floor will be porous, and if litter is used upon it, it ought to be durable. I find here that floors of fold-yards made with cinders and ashes are very lasting. A. DUDLEY CLARKE, Fellow.

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

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (LONDON), 1891-" OWNER."

I believe not. Recent cases have nearly all turned upon the question has the lessee been made liable by the covenants of his lease or agreement to repair or reinstate defective drainage? and in several cases, vide those quoted by me in my recent Paper on Dilapidation Practice,"* and in one subsequent case, at least, he has been held so liable.

P. E. PILDITCH, Fellow.

Reply to Query CLXII. (Vol. VI., p. 137).

LIME AND BRICK BURNING BY MEANS OF GAS.

High-class fire-bricks are burnt in large quantities, and in the most successful way, in Dunnachie's Patent Gas Kiln. The full particulars, and all information as to cost, &c., can be obtained from Mr. James

"Transactions," vol. xxv., pp. 275-315.

Dunnachie, the Ylenboig Brickworks, near Glasgow. The kiln is, or was, also in use at Nuneaton, burning red marl, and at Poole, burning pottery.

I have no personal knowledge of its application for lime burning, but believe this has been done successfully.

Jos. JOPLING, Fellow.

Reply to Query CLXIII. (Vol. VI., p. 137).

LIGHT AND AIR-ENLARGEMENT OF ANCIENT LIGHTS.

(A.)

The only remedy of the neighbouring owner is to erect something on his own land which shall obstruct the new parts of the windows, and so prevent the owner of the warehouse acquiring an easement in respect of those parts. See "Gale, on Easements" (6th ed.), 287. GEORGE KENWRICK, Fellow.

(B.)

I should say there is not the slightest doubt upon the point raised. The owner of the ancient lights can enlarge them in any way he thinks proper.

The neighbouring owner has no means of prevention, except by erecting screens or buildings in front of the new parts of the windows, such erections or buildings in no way to lessen the amount of light enjoyed by the ancient lights.

In similar cases I have had, I have treated them in this way, always giving notice of my intention to block up, when I have been aware beforehand of the intended enlargement.

(c.)

J. GODDARD, Fellow.

The neighbouring owner cannot prevent the enlargement of the windows overlooking his land by any legal process. The opening out of windows overlooking your neighbour's land is not an unlawful act. Tapling v. Jones, 11 H.L. C.A. 290; 34 L.J. Rep. N.S. C P. 342. Aynsley v. Glover, L.T. Rep. 31 N.S. 219.

Staight v. Burn, 5 L.R. Eq. 163.

The only remedy open to the neighbouring owner is to obstruct such portions of the new windows as are not ancient, so as to prevent the access of light to them. This obstruction may be done at any time within the twenty years mentioned in the Prescription Act, but must be continued for at least twelve months.

Practically, nineteen years and one day will be sufficient for the new portion of the windows to gain a right to the light.

Flight v. Thomas, 10 L.J. Ex. 529; 11 Ad. and El. 688.

It would, however, not be prudent to allow the time to run on before obstructing the new parts; it should be done at once, and care must be taken not to interfere with the light passing to the ancient por-tion of the windows, which is not under any circumstances justifiable. JNO. HOLDEN, Fellow.

SECTION IV.

LAW CASES.*

(480.)

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL v. BEST & CO.

[JUNE 7TH, 1892.]

Local government—Street—Building erected beyond general line—Unreasonable conditions imposed-Jurisdiction of London County Council-45 Vict., c. 14, sec. 9, and 51 & 52 Vict., sec. 41.

This was a special case stated by a metropolitan police magistrate. The question was whether the respondents, Messrs. Best & Co., had dedicated the whole of the land in front of their shop, No. 256,. Wandsworth Road, to the use of the public in accordance with 45 Vict., c. 14, section 9; and 51 and 52 Vict., c. 41. On February 15th, 1892, the respondents made application under section 75 of the Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862 (25 and 26 Vict. c. 102), to the appellants, the London County Council, for their approval to the bringing forward of the said premises with a one-storey shop to the same line as the shops adjoining. On March 30th the appellants consented to the erection by the respondents of a one-storey shop in front of the said premises to a certain line, subject to the condition (amongst others) that the whole of the land (18 ft. long by 4 ft. wide) in front of the shop be dedicated to the use of the public. The respondents erected the said one-storey shop pursuant to the said consent and to the line mentioned therein, which line is beyond the general line of buildings. They at the same time threw the said piece of land into the pathway, but they dug out the subsoil of part of the said piece of land so as to form what is called "rolling way" to communicate with their cellar under the said shop. The opening at the top of the said rolling way is about 4 ft. square, and is covered with a cellar-flap hinged to the timbering round the top of the said rolling way, and opening upwards. The respondents used, and claimed the right to use and intended to continue to use, the said rolling way for the purpose of lowering casks

a

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