(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. 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-Un-reasonable 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 a "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 * This Section is intended primarily as a clue only to Reported Cases. of beer and other articles into their said cellar. The cellar-flap is from time to time opened when the rolling way is in use, and the cellar-flap when so opened and such use of the rolling way obstruct and interfere with the use by the public of the piece of land added to the pathway by the respondents. So long as the cellar-flap is not raised, the user by the public of the pathway as a pathway is not interfered with, and the cellar-flap is safely constructed according to the most approved method and in the manner which is common in many crowded streets of the metropolis. On December 16th, 1892, and subsequent days a complaint was made by the appellants to the magistrate that the respondents unlawfully failed to fulfil the condition annexed to the consent of the Council for the erection of a one-storey shop beyond the general line of buildings in Wandsworth Road by not dedicating the whole of the land in front of such shop to the use of the public, contrary to 45 Vict., c. 14, section 9; and 51 and 52 Vict., c. 14. The magistrate was of opinion upon the facts stated that the dedication to the use of the public, which, under section 9 of 45 Vict., c. 14, the Council had power to require the respondents to make, was no more than a dedication of the surface of the soil for the purpose of a general right of passage by the public subject to such user of the soil by the respondents as owners thereof as might be necessary for their trade or business, and that the respondents had complied with the condition of the Council in so far as the same was validly imposed upon them, and he dismissed the complaint subject to this special case. Mr. Justice MATHEW said the respondents obtained leave to add to their premises by building the shop over the line. The County Council has power to impose conditions. The question arises whether the pathway has been dedicated or left open to the use of the public. The public authority have taken proceedings upon the grounds stated in the case--i.e., first, that the respondents had failed to fulfil the conditions, as they had failed to dedicate the whole of the land to the use of the public; secondly, that under the statutory conditions the whole soil must be dedicated to and left open to the use of the public. This is clearly unreasonable. The magistrate was right. Mr. Justice WRIGHT.-I am of the same opinion. The respondents were allowed to carry forward the building on condition of dedicating to the public a strip of land in front of the building. The Act does not say, nor does the license say, nor could it say, that the land shall vest in the London County Council. The argument for the appellants has proceeded upon the ground that dedication means vesting. That argument is not sound. We cannot determine what is the extent of user of the flap which the respondents are entitled to make. doubt they will be liable if they leave it open an unreasonable time. But it would be wrong of us to determine whether if, for example, they leave it open for half an hour in the morning this would be unreasonable or not. The appeal must be dismissed, with costs. --(T.L.R., Q.B.D., vol. ix., p. 499.) No (481.) RUABON BRICK AND TERRA COTTA COMPANY v. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. [NOVEMBER 9TH, AND DECEMBER 5TH AND 6TH, 1892.] Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20), ss. 77, 78, 79 [Revised Ed. Statutes, vol. ix., pp. 726, 727]-MineralsOpen Workings. (For a previous stage of this case, see p. 66 ante.) A railway, which was subject to the provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, passed over a bed of valuable clay, the manner of working which in the district was by open quarrying. The owner, who had sold the land to the company reserving mines, gave notice to the railway company of his intention to work the clay, and the company did not purchase it :— Held (affirming the decision of Kekewich, J.), that the owner was entitled to work the clay from the surface, and for that purpose to enter upon the land conveyed by him to the company, and to remove the ballast and surface soil lying above such clay.-(L.R. [1893] 1 Ch.,. p. 427.) (482.) [HOUSE OF LORDS.] THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, APPELLANT; SIR GEORGE ELIOTT MEYRICK TAPPS GERVIS MEYRICK, BARONET, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS. [NOVEMBER 10TH, 1892.] Inclosure Act-Commonable Lands purchased by Railway CompanyRights of Turbary-Allotment of Waste Lands to Lords of Manor in Trust. Prior to 1802 the occupiers of certain cottages were accustomed to cut turf on large tracts of commonable and waste lands of a manor. In that year an Inclosure Act was passed by which Commissioners were empowered to allot to the lord in trust for the occupiers of the cottages, in lieu of their rights or pretended rights of cutting turf, portions of the waste for a turf common, to be managed as the lord and the churchwardens and overseers should order and not to be depastured. The Commissioners, by their award made in 1806, allotted to the lord, in trust for the occupiers for the time being of the cottages, several acres of waste for a turf common. A railway company took for the purposes of their undertaking part of the land allotted as a turf common, and the purchase-money was paid into court. On a petition as to the distribution of the fund: Held, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal (38 Ch. D. 520), |