Replies to Query CXCIV. (Vol. VI., p. 469).

BOUNDARY-RIVER BANK.

(A.)

1. In the absence of evidence or information as to the ownership of the fence, I do not think A can claim beyond the foot of the bank: probably the bank and the slope belong to the land of the higher level, and the foot of the slope would be the boundary, as the slope would be essential to uphold the fence and footpath.

2. A can claim to the stakes, driven in the river: but I do not quite understand why he claims this as the extent of his boundary unless the stakes were driven in the centre of the river, as a purchaser of land on the banks of a river takes the weight of ownership of a moiety of the bed of the river ad medium filum aquæ.

(B.)

F. HORNER, Fellow.

1. I consider the thorn fence to belong to the upper land, and therefore the sloping bank also, if it is nearly "steep-to," but if very sloping, only so far as a plumb line attached to a horizontal rod at 3 feet from the hedge stake would include; the remainder would belong to A, as shown in the diagram.

REGINALD HANNEN, Fellow.

2. Yes. And if he wishes to plank pile, and recover the washed land, doubtless he has every right to do so, especially as A has considerately staked the original line.

Reply to Query CXCV. (Vol. VI., p. 469).

DISEASE IN BEECH TREES.

In my opinion the disease above referred to is entirely due to uncongenial soil, and I do not believe there is any remedy.

DANIEL WATNEY, Fellow.

Replies to Query CXCVI. (Vol. VI., p. 470).

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT-REFEREE-WASTE-LAND TAX

REDEMPTION.
(A.)

(1) No valuer's license is necessary. At any rate it is never called

for here.

(2) Exactly the same as if manures are claimed for. The items in (b) section 6 are not waste, except so far as they are contrary to written

66

covenants, but if they are provided for in the written contract of tenancy they can be recovered for as "breaches of covenant" under (c). It must be noticed that the words "In the case of compensation for "" manures apply only to (b), and not to (c). The latter is governed by the words at the commencement of the section, viz., “In the ascer"tainment of the amount of the compensation under this Act pay"able," &c.

(3) The annual assessment for each parish usually shews the farms or holdings on which the land tax has been redeemed. Fuller particulars can be had at the Land Tax Department at Somerset House. F. PUNCHARD, Fellow.

(B.)

(1) I doubt whether any award made by an unlicensed umpire could be enforced in a court of law. The moment he charges a fee or accepts a reward for his services he renders himself liable to a fine for evading the law.

(2) An outgoing tenant can adopt one of three courses to recover the unexhausted value of manures and feeding stuffs spent on the land during the last two years of the tenancy--1, under custom; 2, under agreement; and 3, under the Act of 1883. If he declines to place himself under either of the two first and neglects to give notice under the third, the landlord cannot recover for waste or for dilapidations except by legal process.

(3) In most parishes the records are very imperfect, more particularly where land has been allotted for building purposes: in some cases the land tax has been apportioned and part redeemed. In many cases this entails an immense amount of trouble and considerable friction.

(c.)

GILBERT MURRAY, Fellow.

(1) Neither the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, nor the Arbitration Act, 1889, gives any directions as to the "status" of a referee or arbitrator, but it must be inferred from Section 9 (Subsec. 9) of the former that the person appointed must be " competent "and impartial," and the only objection that could be taken would be on either of these grounds. It must, however, be noted that an unlicensed person could not make any charge for his services without incurring excise penalties.

(2) If any claim has been made by the tenant under the Act, whether for manures or other matters, the landlord, under Section 6 (Sub-sec. C and D), can make a counterclaim in respect of any "waste."

"Waste" is anything done or suffered by the tenant which causes injury to the reversion. It is either voluntary or permissive A tenant for years is liable both for voluntary and permissive waste. A tenant from year to year is not liable for permissive waste unless there is an express covenant or agreement to do repairs.

(3) Yes. The record of properties redeemed from land tax is kept at the Land Tax Redemption Office, Somerset House, and can be inspected free of charge.

J. LOOKER, Fellow.

Replies to Query CXCVII. (Vol. VI., p. 470).

IRRIGATION.
(A.)

It entirely depends on the nature of the ground what the width should be between the ridges, and what the depth from ridge to furrow ought to be, as well as what the slope should be. They vary widely according to the porosity of the soil. The widths vary from 30 feet to upwards of 100 feet. The inclinations vary from 1 in 30 or so up to 1 in 130, or even more. To obtain data to enable this land to be laid out, a trial should be made of a plot. There is no fixed rule which applies to every quality of soil.

(B.)

HENRY ROBINSON, Fellow.

From 7 to 9 inches for the width stated. The ridges should not be more than about 400 feet in length, and the best fall in that length about 3 to 4 inches.

These figures, however, may be subject to some modification according to the nature of the particular soil and the configuration of the ground.

The surface must be very carefully formed, to prevent stagnation in pools.

(c.)

R. F. GRANTHAM, Associate.

I think the querist would do better to lay his sewage carriers out on the contour plan, and so irrigate the natural surface of his grass land, with only such alterations as may be necessary to do away with cups in which the sewage might stand. The inclination of the carrier should depend upon the quantity of stuff it has to carry, but the velocity should be about two feet a second.

The advantages of the contour grip over the ridge and furrow are that it costs much less, that the surface soil is left on the surface, and that it is an easy matter to make more contour grips or to fill up old ones when experience of the particular quantity of sewage you have to deal with and your particular soil has shown you how long it answers your purpose best to let the sewage run over the same grass.

On steep ground it may be right to run sewage 100 yards down a grass slope, while on flat porous ground it would be best not to try to make it run ten yards from the grip.

R. W. PEREGRINE BIRCH, Associate.

Replies to Query CXCVIII. (Vol. VI., p. 470).

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS, 1875 AND 1883.

(A.)

By a contract of tenancy or lease for seven years the tenant is bound by the provisions contained in the lease, and all claims for compensation should be based on the Act of 1875, unless the tenancy be subject to a condition which frequently applies to ripening building land, where a clause is inserted giving the landlord the power to resume possession on the service of a six months' notice to quit. In this case the tenant can claim compensation under the Act of 1883, or by custom. GILBERT MURRAY, Fellow.

(B.)

Section 5 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, provides that where, in the case of a tenancy under a contract of tenancy beginning after the commencement of this Act, any particular agreement in writing secures to the tenant (for any improvements mentioned in the third part of the first schedule to the Act of 1883, and executed after the commencement of that Act) fair and reasonable compensation, having regard to the circumstances existing at the time of making such agreement, then in such case the compensation in respect of such improvements shall be payable in pursuance of the particular agreement and shall be deemed to be substituted for compensation under that Act; and Sec. 55 of the same Act confirms this. The reference in the query to the Act of 1875 is not to such last-mentioned Act as a then binding enactment, but is simply a reference to the modes specified in such Act; consequently, according to general rule as to parol evidence to contradict or vary a written contract where there is no ambiguity in the terms used, the agreement itself shall be the only criterion of the intention of the parties. This principle excludes parol evidence contradictory to the written agreement, although such evidence might clearly show that the real intention of the parties was at variance with the particular expressions used in the written agreement; consequently, the parties will be bound to deal with any matters relating to unexhausted improvements contained in the third part of the first schedule of the Act of 1883 according to the modes specified in the Act of 1875, and as to any other matters the tenant's right to claim under the Act of 1883 will not be prejudiced.

(c.)

R. H. POWELL, Fellow.

In answer to this query, Section 55 of the Act of 1883 provides that if, by any agreement, a tenant is deprived of his right to claim compensation under the Act, such agreement, so far as it deprives him of this right, shall be void at law and equity; except an agreement providing such compensation as is by this Act permitted be substituted. Sections 3 and 5 deal specifically with compensation agreed upon by which the Act of 1883 is excluded, and, as the terms of the Act of 1875 I I

are "fair and reasonable," the tenant, in my opinion, is bound by the agreement, and cannot claim under the Act of 1883.

The above is my unassisted view, but since writing it I have submitted the question to a legal friend, who writes as follows:

"Sections 3, 4, 5, only deal with such improvements, and on such "conditions as are here particularly mentioned; whereas, by the "lease in question, all allowances for unexhausted improvements are "to be regulated and valued according to the mode specified in the "Act of 1875. Many improvements are mentioned in the Act of "1883 which were not the subject of compensation under the Act of "1875, and that Act restricts the amount of compensation, and the "time within which it may be claimed. The legal question therefore "arises, whether it is possible to adopt for the purposes of compensa"tion, under a lease of 1888, an Act which was repealed in 1883? It "could, at the best, only serve as a guide or statement of the terms of compensation; and unless it deals with every improvement for which a tenant could claim compensation under the Act of 1883, and on "the same basis (which is not the case), it must to that extent be held "to fail in its purpose (even as a guide), so far as this lease is con"cerned, and section 55 of the Act of 1883 must prevail, at all events. "in respect of improvements mentioned in the first schedule of that "Act."

"It would seem, however, that the lease in question cannot avail "at all against the Act of 1883, on the legal grounds before referred to, "namely, that it substitutes the provisions of a repealed Act for those "of an existing Act."

To summarise, therefore, it is evident that the position, if litigation arose, would be a very difficult one, and, certainly, if a lease embodying such a provision was ever drawn and intended to be acted upon, it was a great error of judgment, as it contains every element of doubt and difficulty.

(D.)

HENRY SANDY, Fellow.

The answer to this question will be found in Clause 5, Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, which says that in the case of an improvement executed after the commencement of this Act, under a contract of tenancy current at that date, if the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, provides specific compensation for such improvement, this is substituted for that given by the Act of 1883.

In the case of a tenancy beginning after the commencement of this Act, with regard to all improvements of the third part of the First Schedule, no agreement in writing can do away with a tenant's right to claim under this Act, unless the compensation which it proposes to substitute is fair and reasonable. Consequently, in my opinion, the clause quoted above from a lease, dated 1888, would not prevent a tenant claiming under the Act 1883, as it would be open to him to say that the compensation provided under the Act of 1875 is not fair and reasonable.

G. E. RICHARDS, Fellow.