ash timber might be grown with advantage. Ash is becoming somewhat scarce; it grows more quickly than oak, and commands as high, if not a higher price. In mixed woods, some tellars might be reserved near the outsides, though not in the underwood itself, if of much value, as nothing will grow under the shade of an ash tree.

A. J. BURROWs, Fellow.

SECTION III.

PROFESSIONAL QUERIES.

Information is sought on the following points :

CLXIV.

OLD ROAD-FORMATION INTO "NEW STREET."

(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 241.)

A owns land within the Borough fronting to an old public road about 15 feet wide. He now proposes to build upon his land. The authorities refuse to pass his plans unless he gives land to the said public road which will make it 14 feet wide (the width required by their by-laws). They say the fact of his beginning to build makes the said road a new street.

It will be seen that if this is insisted upon the owner who builds first will practically be at the cost of forming the new street, the adjoining owner having the benefit of such street without any cost or without having contributed a yard of land.

1. Can the authorities insist that A should give the plot required to widen the road?

2. Are they not compelled to purchase it from him?

3. Are there any cases in support of such a claim?

4. If we comply with the by-laws and set back the proposed buildings 22 feet from the centre of the said public road and retain the land in our possession, can the authorities insist upon more than this?

CLXV.

RATING OF SHOOTING RIGHTS.

(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 242.)

The right of shooting was let and separately assessed. (1) Has the shooting tenant the same exemption as the tenant of land, viz., an exemption of two-thirds of the rating to the local board rates? The

land itself is occupied by the owner in fee and assessed as "woods, "pasture, and arable," the owner only paying to local board rates on one-third of the assessment; the shooting tenant has quitted, the owner does not himself exercise his right of shooting over his own land, but retains the services of keepers and preserves the game in the hope of obtaining a new tenant for the shooting. (2) Is the occupying owner of the "woods, pasture, and arable under these circumstances liable to pay any rates on the shooting assessment whilst he has no shooting tenant? A reference to some authorities would be useful.

CLXVI.

PAYMENT OF RATES ON SPORTING RIGHTS.

(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 242.)

(A.) In the calculation of District Rates, as distinguished from Poor Rates, are those persons who are assessed for Sporting Rights ("where severed from the occupation of the land") entitled to the same exemption as are occupiers of land under the Public Health Act? By that Act occupiers of "land," as distinguished from houses and buildings, are entitled to be exempted from payment of three-fourths of the district rates. These severed sporting rights appear to me to be ejusdem generis with land for this purpose, and not ejusdem generis with houses and buildings, and therefore entitled to the same exemption as land. The editor of the "Justice of the Peace" (26th Feb., 1887) gives a contrary opinion. In answer to a question he says, "Sporting rights are property other than land,' and must therefore "be rated accordingly," meaning, must be rated on the full amount of the assessment for lighting and district rates, &c. The following cases may give some assistance. In Reg. v. Vauxhall Waterworks Company, C. E. & B. 1108, 3 Jur. (N.S.), the Company was held to be rateable for their mains and pipes, as for land, i.e., they were entitled to exemption as to two-thirds. But in Peto v. West Ham, 28 L. J., M. C. 240 it was held that "a wet dock of 65 acres was properly "ejusdem generis with the houses and buildings mentioned in the Act, "and that the occupiers of the dock were rateable at the higher (or "full) amount." So a railway is entitled to the exemption, as is also a canal with its towing path, and even its dry dock and bridges, the latter being merely accessories, and the whole rateable as land and entitled to the same partial exemption as land is. Are there any cases on this point as to severed sporting rights?

(B.) Where the sporting rights have been severed from the occupation of the land and actually let separately, but are now vacant, the tenant having determined his tenancy and quitted, the owner being the occupier of the land, and he having endeavoured without success to find a new tenant, is he liable to pay rates on the assessment heretofore laid on his late sporting tenant? The landlord does not sport either by himself, his servants, or other agents or licensees. It has been argued that because an occupying landlord " preserves" under

such circumstances he must be considered as the beneficial occupier of the sporting rights. But he only preserves in the same sense that the owner of an empty house preserves his premises by keeping them in repair and in a fit state to induce new tenants to occupy them. The only case I know on the point is that of Lieut.-Colonel Sandys, M.P., who was sued before a bench of magistrates for non-payment of a rate in respect of a fishery-right in Windermere Lake, of which he was the owner. The right had been let to a tenant whose tenancy had lately expired. The owner advertised for a new tenant, but had not obtained one, neither had he fished himself, or by any of his agents or servants. It was admitted that the fishery would not improve by standing. The bench did not think the colonel retained the fishery for his own benefit, and decided in his favour. Possibly in this case the land (lake) afforded no subject of beneficial occupation which could be assessed, other than these fishery rights. Are there any other known cases?

CLXVII.

FENCE ADJOINING HIGHWAY-OWNERSHIP.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 243.)

How many feet of soil are the property of the adjoining owner on the side of the public road, where the spring is planted on the field side of the bank?

As a general rule 4 feet from the spring (thorn), on the side the thorn is planted, belongs to the owner of the bank.

If the bank and fence were dividing private owners the soil of B would extend to the edge of the ditch. In the case in question the fence is trimmed by the bank cut down on the road side by the tenants of the owner.

CLXVIII.

PARTY WALL-REBUILDING-COMPENSATION.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 243-245.)

I shall be glad to have information on the following points:The building owner has served on the adjoining owner notice to pull down and rebuild the party wall, if, on survey, it be found so far defective as to be necessary or desirable-to raise the said wall, to cut into, repair, and make good the said wall, and all other necessary works incidental thereto.

The wall, on survey, is found to be sound and of good material, and sufficient for its present purpose, but may be found to be not strong enough to carry the additional weight of the stories raised thereon, and has to be rebuilt at sole cost of building owner.

The adjoining owner will have to vacate his premises if the wall is rebuilt. Is he entitled to compensation for loss of occupation-the works being for the sole benefit of the building owner?

Does the 87th Section of the Metropolitan Building Act empower the adjoining owner to require security for such compensation?

Does the above notice empower the building owner to pull down and rebuild the wall because it is of insufficient strength for the new building?

In the event of the wall not being pulled down, does the above notice to "raise, and all necessary works incidental thereto," cover underpinning, if there be no footings or damp course, by simply increasing the depth of the wall by the thickness of the new footings?

CLXIX.

LAND TAX ON QUIT RENTS.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 245-247.)

Is the lord of the manor liable to pay land tax on quit rents? I collect some quit rents amounting to £2, £3, and £4, from individual copyholders, and they deduct land tax amounting to 4s. in the £ annually.

Should not the copyholder, who is in receipt of the annual value of the land, bear this impost?

CLXX.

TITHE ACT, 1891.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 247, 248.)

By Sec. 8, where the sum claimed for tithe rent-charge exceeds two-thirds of the annual value of the lands as ascertained and entered in the assessment for the purpose of Sch. E of the Income Tax Act, 1853, the owner, by applying to the County Court, may obtain a remission of so much, whether the whole or part of the sum claimed, as is equal to the excess.

Where lands are not let but farmed by the owners, and the accounts, produced to the Commissioners of Taxes, show that not only can no rent be charged, but an actual loss is sustained, no tax is therefore payable under Sch. B.

Under these circumstances can an owner claim any remission of tithe rent-charge?

In the numerous cases in which tenants satisfy the Commissioners of Taxes that they have farmed at a loss, and all charge under Sch. B. is remitted, has this any effect upon the tithe?

Farmers may now claim to be assessed for income tax under Sch. D.; does this do away with the Sch. B. assessment, and govern in the same way the amount payable for tithe rent-charge?