CLXXXI.

ARBITRATION ACT, 1889.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 367, 368.)

Are all valuations of farming stock, tillages, &c. (except where under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883), within the Arbitration Act; also, are valuations of stock-in-trade, or furniture and stock of inns and hotels included? in short, any reference to valuation (or arbitration) as between landlord and tenant, or tenant and tenant, by properly appointed valuers (or arbitrators) or their umpire.

The Act itself does not define "an arbitration."

Valuation. What steps can be taken to forward a valuation where one of the valuers, after having entered on his duties, refuses to sign and send on the joint request to their duly appointed umpire to act, as they are unable to agree?

If the valuation is under the Arbitration Act, the umpire may, after three months, act, but, of course, he would not, unless requested to do so by a joint letter.

CLXXXII.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 368-370.)

Tenant A quitted, at Michaelmas, with usual overholding of pastures and yards in which he had a right to consume his fodder until next May, with his own cattle. But just after Michaelmas A sells his stock and implements by auction, and offers his fodder. This, however, is forbidden by the landlord, on the ground that he cannot sell away straw, and, also, that the incoming tenant, having taken the straw from the machine and thatched it, is in possession of it.

A then claimed a right to sell this fodder to a stranger, to be fed in the yards. To this the incoming tenant and landlord objected, but offered to buy the straw and overholding in the usual way. A, however, accepted the latter, but declined the former, and then claimed market price for the fodder.

Is A justified in either of his three contentions?

CLXXXIII.

ENCLOSURE-PRESCRIPTION ACT.

A and B are trustees of a public building.

In 1861 the building was re-erected, and they enclosed a piece of waste abutting on to a public highway, which has been used since then for persons desiring to attend meetings to congregate on.

The local authorities now claim to have the railings set back to their position previous to 1861.

1. Can the local authorities claim that right, as the Prescription Act, 1832, provides "that if any right of common shall have been actually taken and enjoyed without interruption for the full period of "30 years, it shall give a primâ facie right”?

2. If the local authorities in 1861 sanctioned the enclosure, can the present authorities set their consent aside?

3. Are there any recent cases upon the subject?

CLXXXIV.

DILAPIDATIONS.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 370, 371.)

A lessee for five years covenanted to keep premises "in good substantial and tenantable repair and clean condition," and to deliver up "in good state and condition." There are no periodical painting or papering covenants.

The premises were delivered up in very passable condition, considering the five years of occupancy, and, though nails had been driven in several of the walls, and, in a few places, into woodwork, no damage to the fabric arose through lack of painting or papering.

Lessor claims repainting in two oils and repapering throughout, basing the latter part of his claim on the fact that nails were driven into the walls.

(i.) Is he entitled to more than cleansing and touching up paint, or, at most, to more than one coat in oil?

(ii.) Is he entitled to repapering where the damage is only slight, such as nailholes; and paper (a) where it can be matched, (b) where it cannot?

(iii.) Assuming the lessor could substantiate his claim, would an underlessee for the last two years of the term (similar covenants) be liable to the original lessee for papering and painting, admitting that most of the nailholes had been made before his entry? If so, to what extent?

CLXXXV.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT OF NURSERYMEN'S GREENHOUSES.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 372.)

A florist takes a piece of bare land on lease and covers it with glasshouses.

1. In addition to assessing the net annual value of the glass erections, would it be fair to place an enhanced annual value on the land itself in consequence of the greenhouses being erected upon it?

Where a florist owns the greenhouses, which is invariably the case, upon what table should the annual value be calculated in view of the fact that a florist does not erect greenhouses with a view to their

yielding him an annual profit, but with the object of producing plants, cut flowers, and fruit, out of which he hopes to obtain his profit ?

2. Would it not, under these circumstances, be fair, in arriving at the net rateable value, to assess the amount which the holding would, probably, realise in the open market, and upon that sum to calculate the gross annual value at three per cent. on the capital sum?

As a matter of experience, no florist, in the event of his wanting to let his glass on a repairing lease, could obtain in the way of rent more than three, and, in very exceptional cases, more than four, per cent. on his outlay.

3. Glasshouses being of a perishable nature, necessarily cost a large sum of money to maintain in repair. Is it usual, in assessing the rateable value, to tack on the cost of repairs?

4. Under which class should glasshouses rank for deductions? Would they be entitled to come under Clause 8 in the Schedule under the same category as mills and manufactories, which are subject to 33 per cent. deduction?

CLXXXVI.

REPAIRING COVENANT-GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL REPAIR.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 373, 374.)

The tenant of certain premises is under covenant to keep and deliver up the same in good and substantial repair.

The term having expired, a claim is made under the above covenant including whitewashing, papering, and similar items.

I have always understood that the words "good and substantial" repair included this class of minor or decorative repair, as the greater includes the less.

In this case an opinion has been given, "that the tenant need not 'paper, paint, or whitewash, unless the omission to do so will cause "the fabric to be out of repair. The covenant is to keep in good and "substantial repair, not to cleanse, paint, &c."

This seems a complete reversal of the received view, and I should like to know how far it is correct, and the authority for it, if any.

CLXXXVII.

RATING OF BRICKFIELDS.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 375.)

The rate having been made on the surface rent and royalty, with a deduction from the surface rent, of land and buildings, of 10 per cent. from the gross for the rateable, and from the royalty of 10 per cent. for waste, spoilage, &c.

The occupier now claims a further deduction from the royalty on account of breeze, &c., used in the manufacture of the bricks. Should this deduction be allowed; and is it generally allowed in practice in assessing this particular kind of property?

CLXXXVIII.

LIABILITY TO MAINTAIN A DIVERTED ROAD ON A RAILWAY BRIDGE APPROACH.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 375.)

The adjoining landowner, for reasons of his own, obtains power at Quarter Sessions to move the approach to a bridge of the Railway Company over its line of railway.

He gets permission, after formal notice, and the Highway Board and Railway Company neither object nor assent; two magistrates inspect and approve the diversion made. This was prior to County Councils.

The road being well metalled, lasted for many years without repair. The Highway Board executes repairs up to the foot of the bridge approaches, and the Railway Company on these approaches generally; but, since the road has been diverted, that portion of the new approach has not been repaired by anyone.

Who is liable? What is the proper course to get the road repaired, no public body being willing (as it would appear) to take action?

CLXXXIX.

EASEMEMT OF DRAIN ACROSS LAND OF ADJOINING Owner.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 376, 377.)

An owner of an inn has sunk a cellar and finds it constantly filled with water; his tenant asks an adjoining landowner to let him cut a drain, and pipe it, across his freehold into a watercourse, passing water on to the lands of third parties.

If the landowner consents, what is his position afterwards if the owner and occupier (the third party) raise difficulties on account of this extra water?

Has the inn owner any right to the drain? Would the granting of the easement grow into a right?

Some compensation should be payable to both owner and occupier of the estate through which the drain is proposed to be laid. Can the tenant object?

The tenant is not likely to object if the owner agrees, but if the tenant should leave will he be right in claiming compensation, finding that his landlord is obtaining a rent for the wayleave (as the landowner proposes to do)?

If the land in which the drain is to be made should be required for building sites, how can the drain then be dealt with?

Owners sometimes accommodate one another by allowing land drains across one another's freeholds. Is there any short form of agreement in use on any estate to meet such cases where a rent or no rent has been charged? Is there any rule among surveyors in estimating compensations in such small easements?

CXC.

SECTION LXXXVIII., SUB-SECTION 2, METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT, 1855.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 377, 378.)

In a case where a party wall has been condemned and pulled down by the London County Council and the two owners are rebuilding their respective premises, are the owners liable for the portion of the party wall as occupied before the wall is pulled down, or for that portion to be used by their respective new buildings?

The case in point is where one owner does not require to carry his new building up as high as his old.

CXCI.

BURST WATER PIPE UNDER HIGHWAY-LIABILITY.

The water pipe supplying a house in the London District burst under the public highway, between the Water Company's main and the houses, whether as the result of frost, of a passing steam-roller, or of defect in itself, cannot now be ascertained. The road becomes rotten, a passing vehicle sinks in, and an accident follows. The Water Company then cut off the water and repair the road. The owner and tenant have no power to repair, or any control over the road, even if they had known the defective pipe supplied their house, and this could not be ascertained until the road was opened by the Water Company. Is the tenant, owner, Water Company, or Vestry liable? How far does a branch pipe remain the property of a private owner when beyond his control, or does it become part of the Company's system?

REPLIES.*

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

OLD ROAD-FORMATION INTO NEW STREET.

The authorities are right in their contention that the fact of "A" beginning to build makes the old public road a new street. In Robinson v. Barton Local Board, Jessel, M.R., said: "There are two ways "in which a street may come into existence where there was no street "before. A person may take a grass field or a country lane (for, in my "opinion, it makes no difference whether or not there was a public "highway and lane, or a footpath, existing before, which is thrown into "the street and is utilised, or whether there was nothing but a mere

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