tenant paying an enhanced rent. The tenant does not acknowledge the receipt of the notice, or give the landlord any idea what he intends doing.

Can the landlord compel the tenant to tell him whether he is going to continue at the enhanced rent, or is going to quit at the expiration of the notice; and, if so, how?

Would it be of any use for the landlord to write to the tenant that unless he hears in writing by a fixed date that the tenant intends to leave at Midsummer, he will consider the tenant to have accepted a yearly tenancy from Midsummer at the enhanced rent?

CXLIII.

THE METAYER" SYSTEM.

(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 37.)

Can any of the members furnish me with detailed information as to, and a form under, the system of "Metayer Agreement" in operation, I believe, on the estate of Lady Carlisle ?

HIGHWAY SURVEYORS

CXLIV.

RIGHT TO LET WASTE AS GARDENS.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 37-40.)

Have parish highway surveyors the right to enclose and let roadside waste as gardens?

What means should be taken to prevent them erecting railings or removing fences that have been erected?

The following are the circumstances of the case :

The lord of the manor of the parish is also freeholder owner of a field in a parish town, the road is wide, and there is on the one side a strip of waste, which has for some years been let out by the highway surveyors to poor men for gardens. Recently, however, it has been let to a prominent townsman whom the surveyors have permitted to erect along a portion of the frontage an iron fence in place of the stake hedge formerly existing. Should this fence be continued, the frontage of the field, which is ripening for building purposes, will be taken away, with the exception of a gateway at one end.

Further in the town the waste has been fenced in and planted, and copyholders tenants and freeholders pay a small rent to the surveyors of the highways. In many instances, further in the town, other owners pay quit rents to the lord's agent and not to the steward of the manor for frontage rights, but the surveyors affirm that the lord of the manor, as such, has no rights over the frontage they have enclosed, and they also decline to admit the freeholders' claim of free passage. The property is a very old one, and has been in the family for generations. The manor is a very old one also.

The surveyors have resisted other people enclosing roadsides. We do not wish to enclose; we wish to plant, or throw open the frontage.

C has bought corner of field and has erected iron fence to waste garden Cx, which he rents from surveyors.

B pays rent to surveyors for frontage Bx.

B's copyhold runs to front line. Surveyors have no enclosure here. A is lord of the manor.

CXLV.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT-AGENT, LANDLORD'S VALUER.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 40-41.)

1. Is it legal for the agent of an estate (who has the preparation of all leases and agreements relating to the letting of the farms) to value for the landlord against the outgoing tenant on his quitting?

2. If legal, is it good taste to do so?

3. Can such agent be considered "an indifferent person"?

CXLVI.

RIGHT TO FRONTAGE OF NEW STREET.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 41-43.)

The back of a building of which the front elevation faced the. public street stood close to (or within a few inches of) an old wall. In 1874, when the building was erected, the soil on which it stood was. the property of a private individual. This property has recently been acquired by a local board, ostensibly for a new street, and, the building being demolished, the old wall is exposed as it was previous to 1874. The owner of the old wall, thinking that it now faces the public highway (as it does undoubtedly), is desirous of placing a doorway therein. But

Bx

the local board have erected a fence against the old wall, "in order to protect their rights."

Have the board a right to do this? Has not the owner of the old wall a right to the frontage to the new street so far as the old wall abuts on the new street? Some weeks elapsing between the demolition of the building and the erection of the fence, is there not sufficient evidence to rebut the board's presumption of non-dedication to the public of the thread-like strip of land lying between their fence and the old wall? Is it in the power of a local board to reserve such a strip of land from dedication to the public, after acquiring it so obviously for a new street?

Is there any case at law the circumstances of which bear an analogy to the above?

REPLIES.*

Reply to Query CXXXVIII. (Vol. VI., p. 28).

DILAPIDATIONS-YORK-STONE LANDINGS.

(A.)

A more definite answer than the following could perhaps have been given, had the querist quoted the covenants of the lease under which his client held, the length of the term, the age and condition of the premises when he took possession.

My opinion is, That the repairs executed should, under the circumstances described, have satisfied the usual covenant. It would perhaps have been more satisfactory if the landing had been pieced with, or covered by, a thin layer of stone, instead of being merely "cemented." A good guide is the report of the R.I.B.A., dating as far back as 1842, from which I quote.

"The lessee (under covenants) is bound to maintain the efficiency "of every part of the premises demised, either by simple repair, or "where injury, decay, &c., has proceeded so far as to render it im"possible for any repairs to maintain or restore the part to its proper "usefulness, then by removing it altogether. Dilapidations are con"sidered to be those defects which have arisen from neglect or misuser, "and not to extend to such as only indicate age so long as the efficiency "of the part remains; but if the effects of use or age have proceeded so far as to destroy the part or its efficiency in the structure, this argues neglect or misuse, it being the presumption that at the com"mencement of his term the tenant was satisfied that every part was "sufficiently strong to last to its close."

The above must be read in conjunction with recent decisions which will be found in the "Professional Notes," vide Proudfoot v. Hart, vol. iv., page 246.

Replies must, in all cases, be authenticated by the full name of the Member supplying

the information asked for.

"The tenant's obligation is to put and keep the premises in such "repair as having regard to the age, character, and locality of the house "would make it reasonably fit for the occupation of a tenant of the "class which would be likely to take it."

In Redman v. Lyon, page 147, Gutteridge v. Maynard (1 M. and R., page 344), it is laid down :—

"That where a very old premises is demised and the lessee cove"nants to repair it, it is not meant that the old building is to be "restored in a renewed form at the end of the term or of greater "value than it was at the commencement. The lessee is not respon"sible for such dilapidations as result from the natural operation of "time and elements. What the natural operation of time flowing on "effects, and all the elements bring about in diminishing the value, "constitutes a loss which, so far as it results from time and nature, "falls upon the landlord. If it appears that the tenant has taken care "that the tenement does not suffer more than the operation of time "and nature, and has used reasonable application of labour to prevent "defects, and kept the house as near as possible in the same condition as when it was demised, it would, perhaps, not be fair to judge him "too rigorously by the report of a surveyor who is sent upon the "premises for the very purpose of finding fault."

46

(B.)

H. H. COLLINS, Fellow.

It is quite impossible to give the querist a reliable reply to this question in the absence of some particulars as to the character of the premises, the length of the term, and, most important of all, the terms of the lease or agreement under which they have been held. I may say, however, that under a moderate repairing covenant it is usual to allow worn or defective stone steps to be repaired instead of being entirely renewed, but the material used in repairing would in most cases be required to be stone, and not cement, which is not an effectual repairing material for paving over which foot traffic is to pass.

P. E. PILDITCH, Fellow.

Reply to Query CXXXIX. (Vol. VI., p. 28).

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

I am of opinion that

(1) A can recover for corn, hay, straw, and root crops grown on Y prior to Michaelmas 1891, and consumed on X prior to Michaelmas 1892.

(2) For corn grown on Z and consumed on X and Y during 1891 and 1892, but not for hay grown on Z and so consumed, except for the hay (if any) which belonged to him or which he purchased when he gave up Z at Michaelmas 1891.

C

(3) That B cannot recover under a counterclaim for dilapidations and breaches of covenant on Z, because A makes no claim against B in respect of that holding; but B's right to sue A for such dilapidations and breaches of covenant remains, and is not abridged or prejudicially affected by the Act of 1883. (See Sec. 60.)

(B.)

S. B. L. DRUCE, Associate.

A, having failed to give the statutory notices required by the Act of his claim to compensation for produce grown on Y and consumed on X, forfeits all right to do so. By the consolidation of the holdings, X and Y, a new tenancy was created, dating from Michaelmas 1891. In the absence of notice B loses all right of claim for dilapidation that may have accrued prior to the date of the new tenancy. The covenants of lease under which Z was held, and also in default of legal notice of claim, barrs A's right to compensation. B may recover under a counterclaim for dilapidation that may have accrued under the new tenancy commencing at Michaelmas 1891.

GILBERT MURRAY, Fellow.

Reply to Query CXL. (Vol. VI., p. 29).

RAILWAY RATING.

(A.)

The arches supporting a station should be considered in rating a railway station supported on them, allowance being made if arches are let off for use by others than the railway company, as they should then be separately rated.

It is an important axiom in rating that a hereditament is to be rated at what it is used for, not what it might be; this in spite of decision in West Ham Pumping Station. Therefore, if a railway is valueless, and occupies land which might be utilised for building land, it must not be rated at its building land value.

At present an owner is not obliged to use his land for the purpose for which it is most suitable, nor can it be so rated.

(B.)

WILLIAM EVE, Fellow.

In answer to the first part of the question, only the portion of the buildings forming the station which would, if the premises were let, be productive of remuneration should be taken into account in valuing the station, and not, in my opinion, such abnormal parts of the structure as arches forming the foundations, unless the vaults formed by the arches were utilisable so as to produce rent.

A building will produce no more rent because its foundations have had to be expensively constructed than if they were of an ordinary character.

I have never yet come across a case where a railway, running