« EelmineJätka »
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 ?
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.
(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?
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?
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?
(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 248.)
Can a lessor, at the expiration of a lease, recover from the lessee such reasonable costs as he may have incurred in employing a surveyor and solicitor to prepare and serve a schedule of dilapidations? Does Section 2 of the Conveyancing Act of 1892 apply?
THE METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACT-COMBINED DRAINAGE-COSTS
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 249, 250.)
A is the owner of a house let to yearly and weekly tenants who are not liable for repairs. The local authority, by their sanitary inspector, inspect the premises and serve a notice-
"To open up drains, destroy all defective work, and reconstruct in "accordance with enclosed regulations."
This not having been complied with to their satisfaction, a summons followed under Section 85 of the Metropolis Management Act, which says:
If upon such inspection as aforesaid any drain, water closet, privy, "or cesspool appears to be in bad order and condition or to require cleansing, alteration, or amendment, or to be filled up, the Vestry or "Board shall cause notice in writing to be given to the owner or occupier of the premises," &c.
The clause proceeds to say that if the works are not done in a specified or reasonable time, the Vestry or Board may do them, the cost incurred by them to be paid by owner.
The summons was adjourned, at the suggestion of the magistrate, for fourteen days, for the work to be done.
On proceeding to do the work A's builder found the drain from the sewer to the forecourt of the house to be cOMBINED DRAINAGE, taking the drainage of one house adjoining, such house not being A's property.
No authority is produced by the Vestry shewing an order for such combined drainage, but the old drain suggests its having been constructed before 1855.
Sec. 150 of the Metropolis Management Act defines a drain to be "Any drain of and used for the drainage of one building only or "premises within the same curtilage, and made merely for the purpose "of connecting with a cesspool or other like receptacle for drainage, or "with a sewer into which the drainage of two or more buildings or premises occupied by different persons is conveyed, and shall also "include any drain for draining any group or block of houses by "a combined operation under the order of any Vestry or District 66 Board."
A therefore claims the expense he has been put to by reason of complying with the sanitary notice. The Vestry decline to refund the money.
1. Is A entitled to recover from the Vestry
(a) Cost of whole drainage works?
(b) Cost of drainage works from point where they became combined drainage?
2. Is there a decided case which governs this?
3. What is the custom of Vestries when claims are made under these circumstances?
4. Does the fact that the magistrate suggested postponement for the work to be done affect the case?
RIGHT OF WAY.
(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 250.)
A and B own lands adjoining. On B's land is a cottage, the tenant of which prior to 1859 rented A's land also. He erected a stable and shed on B's land with doors (D) opening on to A's land, and during his joint occupation of both A's and B's lands he used the stable and shed for his horses, carts, &c. The tenant gave up possession of all the land and the cottage in 1859, since which time the properties have been in the occupation of different and separate tenants. The tenant of B's cottage and shed has not used the latter for horses and carts, but has occasionally used the doors (D) opening on to A's land for ingress and egress for himself or other occupants, and there is another entrance to the shed which is most commonly used. The way over A's land is not a way of necessity.
Has B acquired any rights over A's land, and, if so, to what extent?
PURCHASED FEEDING STUFFS-ARE HORSES CATTLE?
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 251.)
In an agreement, a landlord covenants to pay a tenant "half the "cost of purchased cake, corn, and other feeding stuffs consumed by "cattle, sheep, and pigs on the farm during the last year of the "tenancy." Does the word cattle include horses?
TENANT RIGHT-PLOUGHING STUBBLE.
A is the outgoing tenant last Michaelmas of a mixed farm, and has left his proper proportion of root and bare fallow land.
Owing to an early harvest he has leisure time to do some stubble ploughing. B, the incoming tenant, finding he is doing such ploughing, requests that he will not continue it, as he would prefer the stubble untouched till after Christmas. A, however, does finish the field before Michaelmas Day. Has A, under the circumstances, a right to charge for this work? A's contention is that any act done bonâ fide before the expiration of his tenancy must be paid for, and that the notice of objection (given by the incomer and his valuer personally) should have come from the landlord. B declines to be charged this item in the valuation; all else is settled.
The boundary fence between A and B formerly ran down A's side of a stream for some distance; then crossed to B's side for about 20 yards, when it returned again to A's. The whole length belonged to A, and was repairable by him. Latterly he has got a supply of water in another part of his field, and in rebuilding the boundary fence has carried it for its whole length on his own side of the stream. B's cattle now consequently stray up that part of the stream which was formerly fenced off by A, and get from one of B's fields to another.
Has B any remedy against A?