tated our taking action, when he sought to prove, 1st. That by deeds in his possession he could establish a right. 2ndly. That my client was not in a position to shew title to the shop, passage, and garden in question. Having, fortunately, prepared a plan of the property, on comparing it with the plan on old deeds put in by the defendant, it was readily seen that the right of way marked on his plan could not possibly have been over our property. The result was that he was non-suited, and had to pay our costs. The plaintiff's title to the property was twenty years' enjoyment, the title deeds of this and other properties having been destroyed in a fire.

As a more recent instance, I may mention the case of a warehouse in Bermondsey Street, on the north side of which ran a passage, formerly affording access to some cottages at the eastern end.

Owing to improvements carried out by the late Metropolitan Board of Works, the cottages were demolished, the passage way being severed, one half of it (east end) disappearing altogether, the remaining portion, extending the full depth of our warehouse, still remaining. The land on

the north side of the passage was subsequently sold, when the owner set up a right over the passage to his land. The matter was eventually brought into the Courts, when the owner of the land alleged (1) that he and his predecessors in title had enjoyed twenty years' uninterrupted use of the passage in question, and (2) that he and his predecessors in title had enjoyed the use of the passage for a period of forty years. On the first point I was in a position to prove that I had kept a locked gate at the west end of the passage for a period of seven years, thus defeating him as to enjoyment for a period of twenty years. But on the second point he brought forward witnesses who spoke to having used the passage, in common with others, for a period of fifty years. Acting,

therefore, on the advice of the learned judge, who stated, "the owner of the warehouse had shewn a stronger case as "to the twenty years' enjoyment, but, as to the forty years' use "to confer an indefeasible title, he was of opinion the position "of the owner of the land was the strongest," the case was compromised by the owner of the land giving up his alleged right to pass over the western portion of the passage way (enclosed by locked gates), and gaining access at this point into Bermondsey Street over a passage standing entirely on his own ground.

These are two instances of the right conferred by the various statutory periods which may prove of some assistance to other members of the profession.

ALFRED KING, Fellow.

NOTE B.

The younger Members of the Institution owe a debt of gratitude to the author of this Paper, as it sets out, in a very concise form, the salient points in right-of-way law. In the discussion which followed, I see that the question is asked by Mr. SAUNDERS (P.A.S.I.), as if it could not be answered in the negative, "Was it not a fact that the

adjoining owners could enclose on either side up to 15 feet "from the middle line?" and the remarkable fact remains, that no Member present did dispute the alleged fact.

Sec. 69, 5 & 6 Wm. IV., c. 50, says:

"If any person shall encroach by making, or causing to "be made, any building, hedge, ditch, or other fence on any carriage way or cartway within the distance of 15 feet "from the centre thereof, every person so offending shall "forfeit, on conviction, for every such offence any sum not exceeding forty shillings."

It is a common notion that owners on either side may enclose to within 15 feet of the centre, but such notion is

totally erroneous.

Were it the fact that such enclosure was legal, there would not be a road in the country more than 30 feet in width.

In many awards made in the last century, roads are set out 50 or 60 feet in width, and though, through the apathy or connivance of road surveyors and vestries, many encroachments have been made which by effluxion of time have become permanent, every one of these is illegal. It was said by Lord TENDERDEN, in Rex v. Wright, 3 B. and Ad. 681-"I am strongly of opinion, when I see a space of “50 or 60 feet, through which a road passes between "enclosures set out by Act of Parliament, that, unless the contrary be shewn, the public are entitled to the whole of "that space, although, perhaps, for economy, the whole may "not have been kept in repair."

46

This section (69) has been the source of great trouble to road surveyors, and Sec. 51 of 27 and 28 Vict., c. 101, was framed to remove the doubts caused by the section of the original Act.

The argument used by those who wish to enclose is that as Sec. 69 prohibits them from coming within 15 feet of the centre of the road, therefore they are permitted to come up to the 15 feet limit. There is nothing in the section to warrant such a deduction, and it would be a pity if any adjoining owner should be enabled to quote the discussion on Mr. WALKER'S Paper as a justification for an illegal act. ROBT. GODFREY, Fellow.

SECTION III.

PROFESSIONAL QUERIES.

Enformation is sought on the following points:

CXXXVIII,

DILAPIDATIONS.-YORK-STONE LANDINGS.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 32, 33.)

Under a Schedule of Dilapidations the surveyor to the lessor has included York-stone landings, that are but slightly worn, or, may be, a thin lamina split off by the frost. They have been carefully cemented over where worn and brought up to a level surface some time ago.

The Notice requires me "to replace the several landings," and being of a large size, with iron railings leaded in, in the interest of my client (the lessee) I do not feel justified in acknowledging this item without some stronger evidence.

CXXXIX.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1883-DILAPIDATIONS AND BREACHES OF COVENANT.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 33, 34.)

A held under B three holdings, X, Y (bought by B during A's tenancy), and Z (also bought) under three separate contracts of tenancy, viz.:

X under a lease for nine years ending Michaelmas 1891.
Y as accommodation land under a yearly tenancy, with liberty
to sell off all hay, straw, root, and forage crops.

Z under a lease for 15 years ending Michaelmas 1890, without
such liberty.

From Michaelmas 1891, he has held X and Y as one holding under a lease from year to year, with the ordinary restrictive covenants as to

consumption on the holding of all hay, straw, root, and fodder crops produced thereon. But he gave up Z at Michaelmas 1891 (a year after his lease of it had expired), without giving any notice of claim under the Agricultural Holdings Act.

He quitted X and Y at Michaelmas 1892, having previously sent in a claim for inter alia) corn, hay, straw, and root crops grown on Y but consumed on X prior to Michaelmas 1891, and also for corn and hay grown on Z and consumed on both X and Y during 1891 and 1892.

Can A recover for all these? and can B recover under a counterclaim for dilapidations and breaches of covenant on Z?

CXL.

RAILWAY RATING.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 34, 35.)

Where a railway station is built on arches, are these taken into consideration in estimating the cost of the station?

Where a railway, on which there are no profits, runs through a city, is it the usual custom to value the ground on which it stands at its marketable value (were the railway removed), and to add this to the value of the stations? In similar cases in rural districts the agricultural value of the land occupied is added to the value of the stations.

CXLI.

REPAIRING THE ROAD SURFACE OF A BRIDGE.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 35, 36.)

The surface of a brick bridge, open to the public on the payment of tolls, requires regravelling. The incline of the bridge from both ends to the crown is 1 in 42.

It has hitherto been the practice, I find, when repairing, to make the cross section of the road surface slightly concave, the reason given being to prevent the surface water soaking into the side of the parapet walls of the bridge, which would be damaged thereby.

Is that a sufficient reason for deviating from the usual rule of a convex cross section?

The

There are no outlets through the wall of the bridge; if the road surface was made convex would it be advisable to make some? total length of the bridge is 92 yards.

CXLII.

NOTICE TO QUIT.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 36, 37.)

The house is let on the usual yearly tenancy. The landlord gave the tenant six months' notice to quit terminating at next Midsummer, but added to the said notice that, should the tenant not vacate the premises at the expiration of the notice, he would insist upon the