« EelmineJätka »
These tenants exercise their rights under the Ground Game Act, and the constant shooting and snaring of rabbits going on so disturbs the other game that a large percentage drifts over the boundary of the estate, and does not drift back again.
The owner is a'lvised that he cannot legally purchase from the tenants their right of shooting and snaring rabbits on the fields in question, and he does not wish to do anything which would be illegal, or which would be a manifest evasion of the Act; neither does he wish to give the tenants notice to leave, and so take the fields in hand.
It can be assumed that the tenants, if approached on the matter, would be ready to agree to any arrangement which would secure them satisfactory compensation either by a money allowance or in any other way.
(For Replies to this Query see p. 297.) A Corporation Committee, through their surveyor, agrees by letter dated 13th October to let A B a piece of land at £10 a year, it is afterwards agreed verbally and by letter that the tenancy is to commence from 2nd February, but that A B shall have possession of the land before that date to enable him to cultivate the ground. Before the 2nd February the Town Clerk gives A B a twelvemonth's notice to quit this and other land he holds under the Corporation.
Is the notice to quit the said piece of land a good one? That is, can a notice to quit a holding be given legally before the tenancy commences, or would it be a year certain subject to a year's notice, that is a tenancy for two years certain ?
(CCCXLVII. PERMANENT PASTURE-COMPENSATION TO OUTGOING TENANT.
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 297, 298.) Atenant laid down, at his sole cost, 20 acres in permanent pasture 18 years ago. He has a right to break it up. It is now a good turf. He agrees to leave it down on payment of such a sum as a valuer determines he should receive. What sum should he receive, and how is it arrived at, it being admitted that the letting value is increased 10s. an acre ?
CCCXLVIII. GROUND GAME-SHOOTING LEASE-CONTIGUOUS PLANTATIONS
INJURY. (For Replies to this Query, see pp. 298, 299.) In granting a lease to a shooting tenant I am anxious to place a limit to the rabbits reared, there being extensive plantations on the property, with larch and other trees at every stage of growth.
Is it usual under such circumstances to have a penal clause inserted in the lease, or are there any other means for protecting the landlord's property ?
The tenant does not intend specially to preserve the rabbits, but with the ground well looked after it is inevitable that the rabbits will increase enormously.
CCCXLIX. LIGHT AND AIR-NEw WINDOWS NOT IN SAME PLANE AS OLD
WINDOWS. (For Replies to this Query, see p. 300.) An old timber-built one-story workshop at present stands on the yard at rear of a house in London, having windows close to gether throughout its entire length.
It is desired to rebuild this workshop in brickwork and two feet wider, As shown by the dotted line on annexed sketch plan.
If this is done, will the right to light, which the present windows possess, be lost, or can any steps be taken to preserve the right to light, although the new windows will not be in the same vertical plane as the old windows ?
Back Wall of House
(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 301.) A house is taken, furnished, by the week. There is no agreement except what is contained in a few letters regarding rent. Who is liable to repair pipes which have burst owing to frost ?
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 301, 302.) Can a sanitary authority require the removal of a water-closet constructed prior to 1891, but which does not abut on an external wall ?
Bye-law 1 made by the County Council under Section 39 of the above Act says, “ Every person who shall hereafter construct,” &c.
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 302.) C insures growing crops, hay, straw, &c., on bis farm, and has complied with the average clause. By his lease he is entitled to sell clover hay, but other hay and straw is to be consumed or left when he quits at consuming price. A fire has occurred and burnt some meadow hay and straw. Should C be paid such a sum as will enable him to replace the hay and straw, or only the consuming price ?
If C were a quitting tenant and had such a loss in September and were paid full value, he would probably put the sum in his pocket, to the loss of the landlord or incoming tenant, besides making a profit of the difference between market and consuming price, but if he were not a quitting tenant and was only paid the consuming price he would incur a loss in replacing the hay and straw.
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 303.) Two acres of freehold land were purchased by A and B, and on this glass houses have been erected during the last ten years until practically the whole area has been covered in. They also built three cottages on the land. The glass houses are almost entirely devoted to growing grapes and peaches, hot and cold water is laid on by pumping machinery and water towers, and the whole is heated by hot water pipes.
A has died, and I am asked to value the property in order to adjust the partnership, &c.
I know the cost, but on what basis should the survey be made, remem
bering that greenhouses have not a long life and would be worth very little to sell away, whilst on the other hand the fruit trees and the trade connections have been steadily increasing in value ?
CCCLIV. VALUATION FOR PROBATE DUTY.- AGRICULTURAL HOLDING.
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 304.) For purposes of payment of Probate Duty should straw, tillages, young seeds, and growing crops be valued -
(i.) When the farm was held by a tenant under agreement.
(ii.) When the farm was held by the freeholder, who farmed it himself?
Also, in either of the above cases, should straw severed from the land be valued ? Please state authorities.
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 305.) A, the agent for owner, has a certain farm in the county of Hereford for sale. B offers A a certain sum for the farm, to include growing crops, produce, timber, and fixtures. The offer is accepted, and a deposit of 10 per cent. paid. Upon the farm is a rick of hay. Would this come under the heading “ Produce,” or will the vendor have to pay an extra amount for same?
CCCLVI, LIABILITY OF THE THAMES CONSERVANCY TO PROTECT RIVER
BANK FOR BENEFIT OF RIPARIAN OWNER.
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 305, 396.) Within the last fifteen years the Conservators have altered the position of a weir on the River Thames, and at the time of the alteration they built a retaining wall against part of the riparian owner's land, but not of sufficient length to prevent the water falling over the weir from washing away the riparian owner's land.
Siuce the alteration the land washed away is considerable, and the amount annually increases. The Conservancy have been applied to, and have replied that " in their opinion no liability attaches to them to pro. * tect the river bank at the place referred to.” On the facts as stated, are the Conservators liable, and if so under common law or under one of their Acts. In view of the recent decision in the case of Vyner v. The Vorth Eastern Railway Company, I thought some such liability might be laid on the Conservators.
ARBITRATION ACT, 1889.
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 306, 307.) The tenant of a farm in the Midlands quitted occupation at Michaelmas last, and the usual outgoing valuation is to be made to the landlord. At their first meeting, the valuers appointed by the respective parties signed the following memorandum, appointing an umpire. “We the undersigned hereby appoint
our umpire to settle any difference “ which may arise between us in the valuation of tenant-right and other matters between the landlord and
the outgoing tenant of the farms of “ under lease dated
1878, and also under a supplementary ay reement thereto. “ Signed
on behalf of the landlord. “ Signed
on behalf of the outgoing tenant." This memorandum is stamped.
Claims and counter-claims have been made on behalf of both parties. Being unable to agree, the landlord's valuer sent to the outgoing tenant's valuer, for his signature, a joint letter requesting the umpire to make an inspection and to decide the matters at issue.
This letter the outgoing tenant's valuer neither signed nor returned and he now absolutely declines to join in putting the issues before the umpire.
The lease contains no clause providing for a valuation nor for arbitration. The supplementary agreement is of an informal description, and does not supersede the lease in these matters.
Bearing in mind the legal difference between a valuation and an arbitration, would the terms of the memorandum appointing the umpire bring the case under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889 ?
If not, by what other process would it be most advisable to compel the tenant's valuer to implement the agreement to refer and to join the landlord's valuer in submitting the issues to the umpire ?
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 307, 308.) A building estate has been laid out with a building line ” 10 feet back from the public highway. Two villas have been erected on the estate, the main front walls being 10 feet from the highway, and each having a bay window in the front and on the ground floor only, projecting 3 feet from the main wall.
It is conterded that the bays should not have projected beyond the “ building line"; in other words, that the face of the main front wall should have been not less than 13 feet from the highway.
Should the face of the bays have been kept back to the “building line," or was it right to erect the main wall 10 feet distant from the highway ?