Page images



(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 35.) The owner of a plot of land in a main street of a crowded district, built houses with shops on the frontage thereto, and in the rear of these formed a court with cot tages on both sides. The open court was at first paved etc. by the owner, but for the past twenty years or more the vestry has paved, cleansed, and lighted the court, and it has thus become a “street repairable by the inhabitants at large,” but there is no thoroughfare through it, and it serves only for access to the cottages.

The present owner of the land now proposes to pull down all the old buildings on the land and erect new and larger shops on the frontage and a factory on the site of the cottages and open court. Questions : (A) Can the vestry prevent this being done—by claiming a public right

over the open court-- and compel the owner to leave it as an open

space or pay compensation for its being built over? (B) Are there any reported cases in which this point has been

definitely settled by a superior court ? (C) Wonld the same custom and law hold good in a country town?

Back Yards.


Cotia ges.

Back Yards.

Open Court.


and Shops.


and Stops.

Main Street.




(For Replies to this Query, see p. 36.) A, builds a house on a clay soil site which is permeated by land springs ; for eight years there is no sign of any subsidence, but the basement is damp.

Then B builds a large bakery contiguous to A's house; in so doing he excavates the ground about 6 feet lower than A's footings, and builds heavy iron ovens near these footings. After a year or so, the damp in A's basement gradually dries, and then his building gradually settles in the direction of B's building, and on examination of the site, it is found that the heat from B's underground ovens has dried up the clay to a powder.

If A has to rebuild, is B liable for the cost on the ground that (1), he has deprived A of lateral support to his land by undue excavation, and (2) by the excessive heat of the ovens, he has deprived A of the natural support of A's own land ?




[ocr errors]

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 37, 38.) An agreement for the tenancy of some grazing land entered into before the passing of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act 1883 provides that six months' notice to quit shall be sufficient.

Is this provision nullified by Section 33 of the above-named Act, or does it still hold good ?

Is there any distinction between a six months' notice and a half-year's notice ?



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 38, 39, 40.) A township of a parish in Northamptonshire is what is called “Extra Parochial,” and consists of one owner's estate not adjoining nor being intersected by any public highway. The estate has never been charged with “ Highway Rates," and has been considered to be exempt therefrom. The whole of the local rates being now collected under the name of “Poor Rate," the tenants on this estate have been charged on their full assessments, and at the same rate in the pound as the remainder of the parish, therefore the estate is in effect made to contribute towards the cost of the public highways. Will someone kindly explain the full meaning of “Extra Parochial," and say if the authorities have the power to charge such an estate with the cost of maintenance of highways ?



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 40, 41, 42.) A lay impropriator of tithes in a parish was also owner of certain allotments and common rights which were not subject to tithe. An enclosure of common in the parish was made about 1854, when these allotments and common rights were given up to be re-allotted, and a certain field which was then subject to impropriate tithe was awarded him in exchange, while some of the allotments and common land were awarded to A, the former owner of the field. After the enclosure the collecting list was apparently not altered, and the amount of tithe formerly payable on this field was still demanded from A, the former owner, and paid by him without inquiry or question. Certain recent changes in A's estate necessitated reference to the original tithe award, and it was then discovered that this payment was incorrect, although it had been regularly paid up to date. A demands repayment of at least some of this tithe paid in error and refuses to pay any more, but the impropriator's solicitors, now that the mistake is discovered, contend that the title on that field should be transferred to the allotments received in exchange, and want A to unite in a request to the Board of Agriculture to obtain a re-apportionment accordingly. The vicarial tithe collecting list was corrected at the time of the enclosure, and the impropriator has paid the vicarial tithe on this field in question ever since. Am I correct in considering that the tithe must now remain a charge on the field it was originally put upon, and payable by the owner of that field, and that A is entitled to the return of some of the back tithe obviously paid in error ?



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 42, 43.)

A landlord being unable to let a farm at Lady Day, 1894, arranged with two tenants upon his estate (A and B) to farm the land for one year ; in the agreement for that term, the following benefits were allowed to A and B :

1. Reductions in the rent of £150 per annum.
2. Landlord to pay all rates and taxes.
3. A and B not to pay any compensation due to the previous tenant for

cake and corn used by him upon the farm ; and not to pay clean

A and B two months before the termination of their tenancy gavo a valid notice of claim under the Act, including compensation for cake and corn, arising during the occupation of the former tenant, as well as that connamed during their year of occupation.

The farm was let at Lady Day, 1895, and the incoming tenant has been pressed to pay for the allowances arising during the occupation of the former tenant; he objects on the grounds that to carry over from one tenant to another two things must have taken place : 1, that they had the written consent of their landlord to pay to the outgoing tenant compensation ; and, 2, that they had paid him that compensation. Instead of this being the case, their agreement exempts them from paying for cake and corn, and they have their landlord's consent not to pay for the same. An umpire has decided that the tenant who entered at Lady Day, 1895, shall pay the tenants the compensation they did not pay for on entry. Is this legal or just ?




(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 44, 45.) By the Tithe Act, 1891, Section 1, Sub-section 1. “ Where the lands “out of which any tithe rent-charge issues are occupied by several ** occupiers who have contracted to pay the tithe rent-charge, any of such * occupiers shall be liable only to pay such proportion of the sum paid by “ the owner of the lands on account of that tithe rent-charge as the rate

able value of the lands occupied by him bears to the rateable value of the lands occupied by such occupiers.” Does the rateable value mean the present rateable value? Dues this apply

1. Where part of a tenement has been improved since the Tithe Act 1836, and prior to 1891.

2. Where part of a tenement has been built on under similar conditions.

As an example of the 1st. A tenement of 160 acres of which 50 acres were waste, and consequently of little or no value, had a tithe apportionment of £16. Since the apportionment the tenement has been divided, and the 59 acres improved, the whole 160 acres being now of uniform quality. Is the occupier of the 50 acres liable to pay £5 per annum tithe.

As to the 2nd. A farm of 80 acres with commuted tithe £20, has since the Tithe Act 1836, and before the Tithe Act 1891, had about 2 acres of some of the worst land in the farm built on.

The present rateable value of the farm is £100 and of the houses £150. Can the occupier of the farm insist that £12 tithe shall be apportioned to the houses ?

The tenants in all the above cases have contracted prior to 1891 to pay tithe rent-charge.



(For a Reply to this Query, sce p. 45.)

There seems to be variety in the practice of Assessment Committees, some being willing to subdivide and separately assess flats, chambers, and shops comprising one building, while others object to do so.

Can the owner of a block of shops and offices in the City of London, who covenants to pay rates and taxes, insist on the subdivision in the rate book of the portions occupied by different firms with a view to avoid payment of rates in respect of some of the several portions of the premises which may be unlet and unoccupied for long periods ?

Particulars are desired of the case which decides whether the fact that a caretaker lives upon the premises renders the whole building liable to the payment of inhabited house duty.



(For Replies to this Query, see p. 46.)

Under a lease a tenant terminates the tenancy of a farm on 6th April last (1896), the incoming tenant or landlord being at liberty to enter on lands from time to time as from 1st December last, and the outgoing tenant being entitled to hold over lands for various terms to July, 1896. On the 30th April, 1896, the outgoing tenant gives the landlord notice of claim for manures and for cake consumed.

Is this notice of claim good ?

If not good as a whole, is it good in part, and to what part of the holding would it be applicable ?

Some few years since there was a case bearing on this. Has this case been overruled ?




(For Replies to this Query, see p. 47.)

A one-storey brick stable, at the back end of a yard behind a house and gateway within the Metropolis, is in a dilapidated state, and is intended to be rebuilt.

On three sides it immediately abuts on land belonging to other persons.

« EelmineJätka »