CLXXI.

DILAPIDATIONS-SURVEYOR'S CHARGES.

(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?

CLXXII.

THE METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACT-COMBINED DRAINAGE-COSTS OF REPAIR.

(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:

46

"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.

66

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 "Board."

A therefore claims the expense he has been put to by reason of complying with the sanitary notice.

money.

The Vestry decline to refund the

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?

CLXXIII.

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 ?

CLXXIV.

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?

46

CLXXV.

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.

CLXXVI.

BOUNDARY-CATTLE-TRESPASS.

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?

REPLIES.*

Reply to Query CLXIII. (Vol. VI., p. 187).

LIGHT AND AIR-ENLARGEMENT OF ANCIENT LIGHTS.

The neighbouring owner has no right to prevent the enlargement of the windows. If not restrained by provisions in the Building Acts, or under local by-laws, an owner may build with what materials and in what shape he pleases, and have as many windows as he likes, so long as he respects the legal rights of his neighbours. He may build or alter an old building into a structure of plate glass and iron columnsall window; this injures no other person's rights. But to prevent the access of additional light, a neighbour may, if he can, lawfully obstruct the additional parts. He must not affect the old, or he at once becomes liable, and if he cannot obstruct the additional without interfering with the light to the ancient windows, the neighbour has no redress. This question touches a very prevalent but erroneous impression in some quarters. As nothing proposed to be done in this instance can possibly damage the neighbour's existing rights to light (if any) over the owner's premises, the latter may lawfully make his structure all window. He gets no right by so doing, nor does he hurt any neighbour; if, however, the additional access is not interrupted before the nineteen years and one day have expired, the latter gets a complete legal right to the access enjoyed on the expiration of the full twenty years. If the access cannot be interrupted physically then, the lapse of time converts the enjoyment into a right, but no action lies against anyone for merely doing that which will in the prescriptive period ripen into a legal right. The only redress here is to obstruct the additional light by screens or buildings, if they can be erected without interfering with existing rights. FREDERICK A. PHILBRICK, Q.C., Associate..

Reply to Query CLXIV. (Vol. VI., p. 234).

OLD ROAD-FORMATION INTO NEW STREET.

This appears to be a case of "stand and deliver," and A will be badly advised if he does not resist. There is no law which can compel A to give the land without compensation. I have been unable to find any cases which would support such a claim, but there is one reported in "Professional Notes," vol. iv., page 385, which is against such a claim.

Let A submit the plans with the frontage 22 feet or more from the centre of the road, and retain the land until the Council purchases it. If the Council refuse to pass the plans, a solicitor will know how to advise him.

ROBT. GODFREY, Fellow.

Replies mast, in all cases, be authenticated by the full name of the Member supplying the information asked for.

Reply to Query CLXV. (Vol. VI., p. 234).

RATING OF SHOOTING RIGHTS.

(1) The right of shooting is an incorporeal hereditament and not severable from the land, therefore is entitled to the exemption of twothirds.

(2) The owner must be considered occupier, as he preserves. As such the value of the land for tillage, pasture, or growth of underwood is enhanced, and, since the two interests are not severed, one assessment should include both (see Rating Act, 1874).

J. R. EVE, Fellow.

Reply to Query CLXVI. (Vol. VI., p. 235).

PAYMENT OF RATES ON SPORTING RIGHTS.

By the Public Health Act, 1875, Sec. 211, general district rates shall be levied on the occupier of all kinds of property by law assessable to any rate to the relief of the poor, and shall be assessed on the full net annual value, except (inter alia) that the occupier of land shall be assessed in respect thereof in the proportion of one-fourth part of such net annual value. The Rating Act, 1874, abolished certain exemptions from rating contained in the Act of 43 Eliz., c. 2, sec. 1, and enacted that where a right of sporting is severed from the occupation of the land and not let, and the owner of the right receives rent for the land, the right shall not be separately valued or rated, but the rateable value of the land shall be estimated as if such right were not severed; and if the rateable value is increased by reason of its being so estimated, the occupier of the land may deduct from his rent the rate paid by him in respect of such increase as certified by the Assessment Committee. The Act further provides that, subject to the foregoing, the owner of any right of sporting, when severed from the occupation of the land, may be rated as the occupier thereof.

From the above it would appear that the property liable to pay district rates is the property assessable to the relief of the poor under the Rating Act of 1874, and that sporting rights are assessable by that Act as a property distinct from land, and that, although where not let they are to be added to the value of the land for rating purposes, a separate rate will be set upon them upon application to the Assessment Committee. I think, therefore, that the editor of the "Justice of the Peace" is correct in considering (for rating purposes) that sporting rights are "property other than land," and must be rated at their full net annual value. Where the owner is the occupier of the land he would, I consider, be liable to be rated both on the value of the land and the value of the sporting (if any), although he did not sport either by himself or his agents, but he could get the value of the sporting separated by the Assessment Committee, and claim the exemption for rating purposes allowed upon the land.

L. BURD, Fellow.