the expiration of the tenancy, and therefore by reason of the section above quoted cannot do so now.

Is the agent correct, or is the tenant right in saying his letter constitutes a claim?

Replies to Query 913.

A.

The question is a somewhat difficult one. Corn and cake might be consumed up to the last day of the tenancy; and it appears to me that in general practice it would be almost impossible to deliver complete claims before the determination of tenancies.

I am inclined to think therefore that the notice of intention to claim would be sufficient to satisfy Section 2, Subsection 2, Act 1900. If otherwise, the outgoing tenant might still be able to claim under custom. &c., Section 1, Subsection 5, Act 1900.

JOHN GERMAN, Fellow.

B.

The notice sent by letter to the landlord's agent is sufficient; what more can a tenant say than "I shall claim"? It is not necessary under the 1900 Act to give a written notice; a verbal notice before the end of the tenancy is sufficient, and it has been held that a notice without particulars was good. In a recent case a county court judge held that a telegram sent on the last day of the tenancy at 5 o'clock by the outgoing tenant's valuer in the tenant's name, stating that he claimed compensation under the Act, was good.

O. N. WYATT, Fellow.

Query 914.

VILLAGE WATER SUPPLY-ABSTRACTION FROM STREAMS

RIPARIAN OWNER.

The water supply to a village is derived from certain springs, and is at present in the hands of a private owner.

The Rural District Council have arranged to buy the rights of the private owner, and the Local Government Board have sanctioned the scheme.

The present pipes, which have been down some 20 years or more, are 2-inch pipes, but the supply is inadequate, and the Council propose to put in 4-inch pipes and build a small reservoir.

A riparian owner on the stream, of which the overflow from the springs forms a part, refuses to give his consent, and so the scheme is held up.

If the Council purchase the aforesaid water rights, and proceed to put in 4-inch pipes through the village (leaving the reservoir to be made at some future time), without getting the aforesaid riparian owner's consent, would the latter be in a position to stop the work?

I am doubtful whether there is information enough contained in this query to enable a sound opinion to be formed upon it, but in any case it appears to me to be a question for a lawyer.

If the Local Government Board sanctioned the scheme by a Provisional Order, subsequently confirmed by Parliament, I think the riparian owner would be entitled to compensation under the Lands Clauses Act if he could prove damage, and whether he could do so or not would depend upon what proportion of the flow of the stream in which he is interested is derived from the springs to be taken; but if the Local Government Board's sanction was merely obtained to a loan for the purchase of the rights of the private owner, the position would be altogether a different one, and probably anyone apprehending damage from the proposed works might stop the Council proceeding by injunction.

I do not think the construction of the reservoir enters into the question.

W. VAUX GRAHAM, Associate.

B.

It is not at all clear what right the private owner has to abstract water from a spring, and I am doubtful if he has any power to dispose of the

same.

As the Local Government Board has sanctioned a scheme for the purchase of the supply, it has presumably satisfied itself as to the ownership and right to sell, but the questions raised should, in my opinion, be referred to the Board.

I do not think any increase in the dimensions of the supply pipe can be made without the sanction of the riparian owners below; but, for the same reason, I doubt the ownership of the water, and think it probable that the supply already afforded may be stopped by the riparian owners below.

REGINALD E. MIDDLETON, Fellow.

C.

It seems to me that all that the Council can purchase is the right to take as much water as the 2-inch pipes will carry, and that this is all the

present owner has to sell without the concurrence of others (irrespective of the existing works, which are not vital to the question). The real question is: "Who is to be paid for the difference between the quantity

carried by the 2-inch pipes and that to be carried by the 4-inch pipes? " Clearly the same parties as were satisfied when the works were originally constructed, among whom is the objector. I do not see that he, as an individual, could "stop the work," or that, if he persists in his objection he could do more than apply for an injunction to restrain the Council from taking into their 4-inch pipes more water than can be carried by the 2-inch pipes.

JOSEPH LUCAS, Professional Associate.

Query 915.

FOOTWAY-USER BY LOCAL AUTHORITY AS CARTWAY.

In a municipal borough, a way 8 feet wide, connecting at its ends with carriage-ways properly paved and kerbed, itself forming the back way to streets parallel with it, and having two or three cottages fronting into it, has lately been used by the municipal authority for the collection of house refuse, and their large carts cover nearly the full width of the way (leaving 9 inches on each side). It is paved with tar paving as a footway, and there is no crossing at one end, the kerbing of the end road running right over. The way has been open since before 1822, and was doubtless first dedicated to the public as a footway.

Can the use of this way as a cartway be prevented, or have the Corporation power to say this is a carriage-way, and if so should they not have paved it accordingly?

Query 916.

OLD ROAD-DIVERSION-NEW ROAD AT HIGHER LEVEL-ACCESS FROM ADJOINING OWNER'S LAND.

A client is the owner of land on the north side of an old highway. A railway company has diverted the highway and constructed a bridge partly on the site of the highway and partly on land purchased from the owner on the south side.

The highway was at a much lower level than my client's land, and the diversion, being on embankment, leaves a deep gully between the two, about 30 feet wide.

Can I legally fill up this gully, which is part of the old highway, to a convenient level, and gain access to the diverted road?

There is no mention of this severance in the conveyance by the late owner to the company, or in the record of the negotiations prior to the sale to the company.

The old highway is not used by anyone except my client's tenant. It is an overgrown waste, and has been so for at least 12 years.

Replies to Query 916.

A.

I am of opinion that, the old highway being an abandoned road, the present owner of the land in question can fill up the gulley in order to gain convenient access to the new substituted road.

HY. CURTIS CARD, Fellow.

B.

I assume that the bridge is over the railway and that the embankment referred to carries the approach road leading up to it. Then the embankment is the property of the railway company and, as such, cannot be appropriated or interfered with by the adjoining landowner. He could probably lay claim to the remaining site of the old road, and to some extent fill it up, but not so as to encroach with his filling beyond the toe of the railway company's road embankment, and he must not cut off their access for maintenance, &c. He has no right to take support from the embankment, nor to go over it for gaining access to the new road. If any part of the northern owner's land was taken for making the railway, these things ought to have been secured under "accommodation works." It is a case for negotiation and arrangement with the railway company. S. B. SAUNDERS, Fellow.

Query 917.

INSURANCE-TIMBER YARD-PROPOSAL TO ERECT FOUNDRY
ADJOINING-REMEDY.

A is owner of a timber yard and joiner's works, which have been in existence over 30 years.

B, the owner of a plot of land adjoining, proposes to erect a foundry, which will be dangerous to A's yard, and also increase his cost and difficulty of insurance. Has A any remedy before B commences operations?

Reply to Query 917.

In this case the only remedy that I can suggest is that A should build a perfect party-wall between his premises and the foundry, carrying the same up at least three feet above the highest point of any building.

B would probably join in the expense of such wall, as, generally speaking, a timber yard and joiner's works is considered by the fire offices a more hazardous risk than a foundry.

F. E. EILOART, Fellow.

Query 918.

INHABITED HOUSE DUTY-CO-TENANTS-ROOMS USED AS OFFICES.

A, a private company, and B, a firm of bakers, are co-tenants under a joint agreement, of a house in which A has the use of three rooms, as offices only, on the first floor.

B has a shop and bakehouse, and occupies the rest of the premises as a private dwelling house.

B has access to the offices through the ordinary private entrance and staircase used by both tenants.

A, whose share of the rental is only £19, which is paid separately and directly to the landlord, has been called upon to pay "inhabited house duty."

Is such tax chargeable under the circumstances?

Replies to Query 918.

A.

I am of opinion that the inhabited house duty is chargeable under the circumstances as stated.

B.

FRANK SWAIN, Fellow.

Premises such as those described in the query are usually assessed to inhabited house duty in one amount on the entire premises.

If A and B are joint tenants of the whole house, I do not understand why A pays a separate rent for three rooms direct to the landlord.

The whole amount of inhabited house duty can, I think, be demanded from either A or B, or from them both jointly.

The apportionment of the duty after it has been paid must be in accordance with the agreement between A and B as to payment of outgoings.

HAROLD GRIFFIN, Fellow.