AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1883-NOTICE OF CLAIM.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 488.)

Where an agreement provides "that the rate of compensation pay"able for unexhausted manure or cake consumed shall be ascertained "in manner provided by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883," is it necessary to give the two months' notice of claim before the determination of the tenancy, and particulars of the claim, as provided by the Act of 1883 ?

COVI.

HIGHWAY BOARD-CONTRACTORS' CARTING-EXTRA REPAIRS-CLAIM. (For Replies to this Query, see pp. 488, 489.)

Some five miles from a railway station, a farm-house has been converted into a gentleman's residence, and new stabling erected at a cost of some £15,000.

The work has been executed by a London firm of builders.

The road through the estate to house and stables is a public road under the control of the Highway Board, about half a mile.

A claim has been made against the contractors for the cost of extra repairs beyond the average amount expended during the previous two years by the Highway Board under Sec. 23 of the "Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878."

The contractors have employed only one-horse carts.

The road was rough and ill-conditioned at the outset, and is now but poorly metalled.

Is the claim legal?

CCVII.

REPAIR OF ACCOMMODATION ROAD.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 489, 490.)

A private accommodation road leads to a farm owned by A, who has no land on either side of the road. B and C are owners of the land on each side of the road, have access to and use it. The road is fenced on both sides. It has never been repaired by anyone within memory. The road is now in a dangerous condition. Has A any claim to compel B and C to repair the road, as adjoining owners, at their own cost, or jointly with him; or if he wishes to make a good road to his own farm must A do it at his own expense, B and C having the advantage of his outlay?

CCVIIA.

THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT RATE OF THE LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.

The following clause has been drafted for one of the large landlords in the City, to meet this and shift the onus back on the lessee. The Member who forwards it to the "Notes" invites legal and professional opinions on it, as to

1. Whether it is legally sufficient, having regard to the language of the Bill, and

2. Whether a complicated clause (such as this is) would deter a tenant from entering into a lease of the property.

44 6

"And the lessors hereby covenant with the lessee that in each 'year of the term of years hereby granted, during which the lessee "shall punctually pay the rent intended to be hereby reserved on the "several days herein before appointed for the payment of the same, or "" within 30 days thereafter respectively, and shall observe and perform "the lessee's covenants therein contained, the lessors will in lieu and "full discharge of the instalment of the said rent, which shall become "due on the* day of in such year, accept "such a sum of money as shall be equal to one-fourth part of the said "' rent of £ ,t after deducting from such one-fourth part the 46 6 sum of £ less the total amount of any rates, taxes, or "assessments levied, charged, or assessed during such year upon the "lessors in respect of the hereditaments hereby demised, and which "under the provisions of any statute which may hereafter be enacted "shall be thrown upon the lessors, notwithstanding the lessee's "covenants hereinbefore contained.'

The nominal rent would be, say, 20 per cent. higher than the agreed rent, but the margin should be made sufficiently large to cover "contingencies."

The fourth quarter, if rent payable quarterly.

The difference between the nominal and the agreed rent.

The nominal rent.

REPLIES.*

Reply to Query CLXXXI. (Vol. VI., p. 353).

ARBITRATION ACT, 1889.
(E.)

1. Referring to the question raised on p. 353 and answered on pp. 367 and 368, should not the replies be qualified by saying that the power of an umpire to proceed ex parte, in the face of the refusal of the second arbitrator to concur in calling in the umpire, can only be used when three months from the commencement of proceedings has elapsed? If, after having appointed an umpire, the arbitrators at their first meeting are unable to agree, and one arbitrator, in order to hasten proceedings, wishes to call in the umpire, while the second arbitrator is unwilling to do so, and therefore declines to concur in the request to the umpire to act, surely, if called on to act by one arbitrator, the umpire has no power to do so unless and until the three months from the commencement of the proceedings have expired? Schedule I., D. and E.

2. In regard to reply B, surely there is no "misconduct" in such a * Replies must, in all cases, be authenticated by the full name of the Member supplying the information asked for.

refusal. If the Act meant that as soon as the arbitrators disagreed the umpire was to be called in, why are three months in which to disagree allowed them?

3. In regard to reply C, it may be observed that the question was not as to the appointment of the umpire, but as to his being called on to act. Also, "The award of an umpire, after the expiration of three months, is illegal, except with the written consent of the parties to the reference," is a statement scarcely warranted by the Act. The arbitrators have three months, and the umpire one additional month, in which to make their awards; and both arbitrators and umpire have power to extend their respective time limits almost indefinitely. The consent of the parties to the reference is not necessary to these extensions. W. F. PERKINS, Fellow.

Reply to Query CLXXXII. (Vol. VI., p. 353).

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

(H.)

No, unless there is something in the written agreement which justifies him, and which is not disclosed in the question. By allowing the incoming tenant to take the straw and thatch it he has handed possession of it over to him, and therefore had no right to sell it to anybody else. He was only then entitled to its consuming price; and as he was paid for the "overholding value" of the pastures and yard he has got all he can reasonably expect.

F. PUNCHARD, Fellow.

Replies to Query CXC. (Vol. VI., p. 357).

SECTION LXXXVIII., SUB-SECTION 2, METROPOLITAN BUILDING Аст, 1855. (c.)

Sub-section 2 of the 88th Section of the Metropolitan Building Act is perfectly clear-" due regard being had to the use which each owner makes of the party wall." Each owner has to pay the cost of pulling down and rebuilding, or, "as used before the wall was pulled down," and if there be any additional thicknessing required by the building owner for the purpose of a new building, such additional thickness or other works would have to be paid for by the building owner, being one of the matters in which regard has to be had "to the use which he makes of the structure." If the one owner does not require to carry up his new building as high as the old building was, that would make no difference-once a party wall always a party wall, and both building and adjoining owners are responsible under the clauses of the Act, to execute certain works, and to pay for the same in manner set forth in the Act.

A case in point is that of Williams v. Bull, reported in the Times of February 15th, 1890.*

H. H. COLLINS, Fellow.

See also" Transactions," vol. xxiv., page 89.

(D.)

The wall having been condemned as a dangerous structure, the owners are liable for the portion of the party wall as occupied before the wall is pulled down.

Section 88, Sub-section 2, applies to expenses incurred after notice provided for in Section 83.

ALEX. R. STENNING, Fellow.

Replies to Query CXCI. (Vol. VI., p. 357).

BURST WATER PIPE UNDER HIGHWAY-LIABILITY.

(A.)

A very interesting question for discussion in the Law CourtsBrighton and Kensington cases as illustration. I should be of opinion that, in the first place, the Vestry would be liable as the custodians of the road; as to whether the said Vestry could recover of the Company or occupier must depend entirely upon the relative positions they occupy towards one another; in some cases the Company repairs, in others the Vestry repairs upon schedule price. With reference to the proprietorship of the branch pipe, the tenant, upon giving notice to the Company, could undoubtedly remove it-as his own property-the consent of the Road Authority to open the road being obtained.

(B.)

C. JONES, Fellow.

The service pipe from the Company's main to the house, although under the public road and footpath, is the property of the owner of the premises supplied therewith, who, by statute (Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, Sections 48 to 54), is liable to keep the same in proper repair.

It is not beyond his control, nor does it become part of the Company's system. Section 52 empowers the owner or occupier to open the road or pavement of any street in order to repair the pipe, without the intervention of the Water Company, upon application to the Vestry or other road authority.

The Water Company can cut off the water in consequence of waste, but its doing so does not shift the responsibility to its own shoulders. The Water Company is not liable for the accident, nor the tenant, if a yearly one. If it could be proved that the burst was caused by the passing of a steam roller the Vestry could be held liable, if through a defect in the pipe, the owner.

WM. HART, Fellow.

Replies to Query CXCII. (Vol. VI., p. 468).

METROPOLITAN MANAGEMENT ACT, 1862.

(A.)

Drains and all works in connection therewith must be carried out under the direction and to the satisfaction of the local authority, but any person can appeal to the London County Council against any requirement of the local authority in connection with such work (18 & 19 Vict., c. 120, s. 211).

WM. WEAVER, Fellow.

(B.)

There can be no doubt but that, under Section 61, the Vestry have control over the entire drain. That the arrangement proposed is injudicious, and likely to prove objectionable, is also certain, unless the fall from house to main sewer is very considerable.

(c.)

C. JONES, Fellow.

Section 61 of the Local Metropolitan Management Act, 1862, applies to the whole of the drain. The vestries and district boards have also control over the construction, arrangement, and ventilation of waterclosets, and all sinks, traps, and apparatus in connection therewith. It has even been held that the vestry have the right to determine which of two descriptions of drain-pipes should be used. In Austin v. Vestry of Lambeth (27 L.J., Ch. 677), the Court refused, on information, to restrain the vestry from entering upon plaintiff's premises for the purpose of taking up works constructed of Aylesford pipes, the vestry by their order having required Lambeth pipes. But the vestry's order may be made the subject of appeal to the London County Council (Sec. 211 Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855, 18 & 19 Vict., 120). But the appeal must be entered within seven days of the service of the vestry order.

So far as I can follow the description of the drain, I concur with the questioner as to the impropriety of such a construction, viewed from a sanitary standpoint. And, further, there is no doubt that a properly-constructed 6-in. drain would be ample for the purpose.

ARTHUR HARSTON, Fellow.

Reply to Query CXCIII. (Vol. VI., p. 468).

TENANT FOR LIFE-DILAPIDATIONS.

A tenant for life is liable to repair, even should his tenure be without impeachment of waste. He cannot be compelled to make good such dilapidations as accrue through time and fair wear and tear. If the premises were painted within a reasonable time, the tenant for life is only responsible for actual dilapidations, i.e., to clean and touch up the old work, but not to repaint. Wall papers torn, or injured by damp, are not the result of fair wear and tear, and, unless he can match the pattern and neatly make good the dilapidation, he must repaper the whole room. In the case of grained doors and skirtings which may have been injured or defaced, he may make good and touch up, provided the work is skilfully executed.

Bad cracks in York stone pavement cannot be attributed to fair user or to the inroads of time. There are indications of unfair use, and, hence, this must be treated as a dilapidation, and the cracked stone must be replaced by new pavement.

GILBERT MURRAY, Fellow.