(447.)

THE CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS OF NORWOOD, APPELLANTS, v. SALTER, RESPONDENT.

[FEBRUARY 16TH AND MAY 14TH, 1892.]

Poor rate-Hereditament of £8 rateable value-Order of vestry to rate owner-Subsequent agreement by owner to pay rates whether premises occupied or not—Increase in rateable value after agreement— Rating of occupier-32 & 33 Vict. c. 41 (Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869), ss. 3 and 4.

The vestry of the precinct of Norwood, in the Uxbridge Union, by resolution pursuant to 32 and 33 Vict. c. 41, s. 4, ordered that, in all rates thereafter made, the owners of all hereditaments of a rateable value not exceeding £8 should be rated to the poor instead of the occupiers. This order was never rescinded. Subsequently, on the 13th May, 1889, pursuant to the same section, the owner of certain hereditaments to which the said order applied, gave notice in writing to the churchwardens and overseers that he was willing to be rated in respect thereof for three years from that date, whether the same should be occupied or not; and by an agreement of the 21st May, 1889, reciting such notice, the churchwardens and overseers agreed, in consideration thereof, to allow the owner an abatement of 25 per cent. from the amount of all poor rates in respect of such hereditaments during the three years stated in the notice.

On the 26th September, 1890, a new valuation list was approved by the assessment committee, in which the rateable value of one of such hereditaments which had previously been £8, was raised to £11 5s.

On the 17th August, 1891, a poor rate was made, and the occupier of this hereditament was rated at the higher assessment and called on to pay £1 19s. Upon application to justices to issue a distress-warrant for this amount against the occupier, it was proved that the owner had paid all poor rates which would be due in respect of such hereditament, if the said notice and agreement were still in force.

Held, on a case stated, that the notice and agreement were no longer in force in regard to the said hereditament; that the rate was properly made on the occupier, and that a distress-warrant ought to issue to compel him to pay it.-(L.T., Q.B.D., vol. lxvii., N.S., p. 376.)

(448.)

EAST LONDON WATERWORKS COMPANY v. KELLERMAN. [MAY 9TH, 1892.]

Water rate-" Owner for the time being"-Liability of purchaser as 'owner for the time being" for arrears due before purchase-Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) Act 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 21), s. 4. Sect. 4 of the Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) Act 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 21) provides that where the owner and not the

occupier is liable to the payment of the water rate in respect of any dwelling-house, the water company shall not cut off the water supply for non-payment of the water rate, but such water rate shall be a charge on such dwelling-house in priority to all other charges affecting the premises," and (without prejudice to such charge) the amount may "be recovered from the owner or from the occupier for the time 'being in the same manner as water rates may by law be re' covered."

666

Held, that the words "owner or occupier for the time being" refer only to the owner or occupier at the time when the rate is sought to be recovered.

Held, also, that in cases where the owner and not the occupier is liable for the water rates, the purchaser of the premises, as "owner "for the time being," is liable in a personal action for the arrears of water rates which accrued due from the previous owner before the date of the purchase.-(L.T., Q.B.D., vol. lxvii., N.S., p. 319.)

(449.)

LEPLA v. ROGERS.

[MAY 14TH, 16TH; JUNE, 25TH; OCT. 31st, 1892.] Landlord and Tenant-Breach of Covenant not to Assign without Licence-Measure of Damages.

A lease contained a covenant that the lessee should not assign or sublet the premises, or any part of them, without the consent in writing of the lessor, his executors, administrators, or assigns; but that such consent should not be unreasonably or capriciously withheld to a responsible assignee or sub-tenant. The lessee, without applying for the consent of the lessor, sublet the premises to a person who intended, as he knew, to use them, and who did, in fact, use them as a turpentine distillery. The premises having been burnt down by a fire arising from the use of the premises for the business for which they were taken, an action was brought by the lessor for breach of covenant:

Held, that the loss caused by the fire was the natural result of the breach of covenant, and was, therefore, recoverable as damages in the action.-(L.R. [1893] 1 Q.B., p. 31.)

(450.)

[HOUSE OF LORDS.]

THE TABERNACLE PERMANENT BUILDING SOCIETY, APPELLANTS, AND JOHN KNIGHT, RESPONDENT.

[MAY 31ST, 1892.]

Arbitration—Building Society—Dispute between Society and Member— Reference to Arbitration-Special Case, Power of Court to order Statement of-Time, Computation of- Division of a Day-Building Societies Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 42) s. 36-Arbitration Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49) ss. 19, 24.

Sect. 19 of the Arbitration Act 1889 which provides that an arbitrator shall, if so directed by the Court or a judge, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Court any question of law arising in the course of the reference, applies to arbitrations under the Building Societies Act 1874.

So held, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal ([1891] 2 Q.B. 63).

In an arbitration under the Building Societies Act 1874 one of the parties to the arbitration obtained at chambers an order nisi calling upon the arbitrators to shew cause why they should not be required to state a case for the opinion of the Court. Later on the same day, but without having had notice of the order nisi, the arbitrators made and signed their award :

Held, that the jurisdiction of the Court was not ousted and that the order nisi was rightly made absolute.-(L.R. [1892] A.C., p. 298.)

(451.)

[HOUSE OF LORDS.]

SIR ROBERT HERRON AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, AND THE RATHMINES AND RATHGAR IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS, RESPONDENTS.

(MAY 23RD, 1892.]

Waterworks-Reservoir-Exercise of Statutory Powers-Deviation, lateral-Construction of Works unauthorised by Statute-Injunction.

Where the promoters of a public undertaking have authority from Parliament to interfere with private property on certain terms, any person whose property is interfered with by virtue of that authority has a right to require that the promoters shall comply with the letter of the enactment so far as it makes provision on his behalf. Nor can any Court remodel arrangements sanctioned, or relax conditions imposed, by Act of Parliament.

Deviation, in its ordinary and natural sense and as used in Acts of Parliament, means shifting the work in its integrity from one site to another which may be deemed more suitable. It does not imply a right not only to alter the situation of the work but in doing so to dispense with a half or two-thirds of it.

A local and personal Act empowered commissioners to take water from a river for the supply of a township on condition of their executing certain works and (inter alia) a reservoir to supply compensation water to mill-owners, and a conduit, the reservoir to be constructed by an embankment across the river. The Act and the relative plans and sections described the position of the reservoir, its contour and capacity, and the height of the embankment, and provided that in constructing the authorised works the commissioners might subject to the provisions of the Act deviate from the lines of the works to any extent not exceeding the limits of lateral deviation shewn on the deposited plans, and from the levels shewn on the deposited sections, in the case of the reservoir to any extent of lesser height which would enable the commissioners to give a sufficient supply of water for compensation purposes; but the commissioners should not in the exercise of the power of lateral deviation thereby given construct any embankment or wall of any reservoir of a greater height above the general surface of the ground than that shewn on the plans with reference to the corresponding embankment or wall and six feet in addition.

In constructing the reservoir the commissioners curtailed it by more than one-third of its length and nearly two-thirds of its capacity, and placed the embankment higher up the river than the point fixed by the Act and so that the capacity could not be enlarged in the event of the supply of compensation water proving insufficient. In constructing the conduit the commissioners disregarded in material points the directions of the Act as to the course and serviceableness of the conduit and constructed a conduit which they alleged was "a substantial equivalent" to the mill-owners. The mill-owners having brought an action against the commissioners:

Held, reversing the decision of the Irish Court of Appeal (27 L.R. Ir. 179), Lords Morris and Hannen dissenting, that though no actual damage was proved the mill-owners were entitled to a declaration that the reservoir and conduit were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and to an injunction restraining the commissioners from taking or using the waters of the river or from interfering with the flow of the river otherwise than as authorised by the Act.-(L.R. [1892] A.C., p. 498.)

(452.)

IN RE LANDER AND BAGLEY'S CONTRACT.

[JUNE 1ST, 30TH; JULY 2ND, 1892.]

Lessor and Lessee-Agreement for Lease-Public-house-" Usual covenants-Covenant against assignment without consent--Proviso for re-entry-Date of commencement of Term-Parol EvidenceOption to renew-Specific Performance-Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, s. 9 [Revised Ed. Statutes, vol. xvii., p. 289].

An agreement for the lease of a public-house, dated the 1st of April, provided for a term of three years, with an option to renew for another seven years, and for possession to be given "within one month from this date," but contained no reference as to the covenants to be inserted in the lease. The lessor insisted upon covenants by the lessee, (1) To reside on the premises and personally conduct the business; (2) Not to assign without consent; and that the proviso for re-entry should extend to the breach of any covenant. The lessee objected that these were not "usual" clauses :

Held, that covenants 1 and 2 could not be insisted upon as usual covenants; and, on this point, the fact that the subject-matter of the lease was a public-house, made no difference, and that the proviso for re-entry must be limited to the case of non-payment of rent.

Henderson v. Hay followed.

Held, also, that the commencement of the term could be collected from the agreement as a whole, and that the day possession was given - a fact on which evidence was admitted-was the date from which the lease was to commence, and consequently that there was a valid contract.

Marshall v. Berridge discussed and applied.

Where, on a summons under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, objection is taken that the contract, if valid, is not one of which specific performance can be obtained, the Court will express an opinion upon the construction of the contract, and will decide any question raised at the hearing of the summons which, if left undecided, could be raised again in an action for damages.

Whether there is any difference between a lease for three years, with an option to renew for another seven years, and a lease for ten years, with an option to determine at the end of the first three, query. -(L.R. [1892] 3 Ch., p. 41.)

D