ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Paid the postage of 20 letters since the first of January,
1689, to and for the 30th of May, 1690 in Sir John
Nicholas his concerns

This Accomptant John Hayward his wages for half a year
to and for the 2nd of February 1689 as formerly
Payd the sack carrier at Warmister

00 05 0

10 00 0

00 00 9

Paid the Hostler for setting my horse at Sarum one qrter. ending

[ocr errors]

00 00 6

Payd for 3 bushells of Salt to Salt the Bacon, and Brine the wheate at 28 4d. per bushell

00 07 0

The payment to the "sack carrier" is a frequent entry, and the amounts are considerable as wages went in those days. It would, therefore, appear that the corn was not sold by a sample sack but in bulk.

The hostler seems to have been a very badly paid individual.

From the mention of brining the wheat before sowing it would appear that somehow or other they had then discovered that the embryo of smut existed on the outside skin of the wheat corn, and could be destroyed or weakened by a solution of strong brine.

The Summary does not show a very satisfactory result, especially as no rent was debited, but several rather heavy payments were made on the good Knight's private account, which could not fairly be charged against the Farm account.

The result of the year's working is shown as

follows:

Sume Totall of the payments and disbursements from ye first of January, 1689, to and for the first of January, 1690, vist.

[ocr errors]

Sume Totall of the receipts from ye first of January, 1689,
to and for the first of January, 1690, vist.
And there remains in surplusage to this Accomptant, John
Hayward, to and for the first of January, 1690

461 01 1

456 13 8

004 07 44

The Account closes with a very careful Schedule of the live stock on the farm on the 1st January, 1690, also

showing the sales and losses during the year 1689.

On a total of 843 sheep of all sorts there was a loss of 44, or just about 5 per cent. The lambs bred were only 250. This small number is probably due to the fact that they then kept their wether sheep round to twoteeth, four-teeth, or even six-teeth, as they were not considered good mutton until then. This would render the proportion of ewes in the flock much smaller than at present.

The absence of the sale of any large quantity of skins would seem to indicate that the small number of lambs was not due to bad luck.

E. A. RAWLENCE, Fellow.

Notes on the case of

Home and Colonial Stores Ltd. v. Colls.

LIGHT AND AIR.

(For a Report of this case see p. 179 infra.)

(A.)

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in this case was delivered on December 20th last, with the result that, as was anticipated, the decision in the Lower Court has been reversed.

It will be remembered that Mr. Justice Joyce in the King's Bench action, "after considerable hesitation," felt himself bound to follow Mr. Justice Wright's decision, " until reversed by the Court of Appeal," in the case of Warren v. Brown. Since then that judgment has been reversed on appeal, as commented on in notes on pages 13 to 18, part i., vol. xi. Professional Notes.

This case was decided on the same lines as, and con

firms, the Appeal Court decision in Warren v. Brown, and what is termed the true rule of law with reference to interference with ancient lights was authoritatively laid down thus: If ancient lights are interfered with substantially, and real damage thereby ensues to tenant or owner, then that tenant or owner is entitled to relief.

They also added that without substantial interference there is no right of action, and in order to obtain an injunction the plantiff must establish substantial injury suffered or threatened. If an occupier suffers damage to his particular user of the premises for ordinary business purposes, it is not an answer to a claim for an injunction to prove that the selling or letting value of the premises is not depreciated; and in this case, as more electric light would be consumed and have to be paid for than hitherto, it was considered that real damage was suffered. evidence, the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that substantial interference and real damage would result, notwithstanding that a sufficiency of light might have been left for ordinary purposes.

On the

With reference to the angle of 45 degrees, the considered judgment of the three judges sets forth that, where an angle of 45 degrees is left, the difficulty of applying the rule may well induce the Court to scan the plaintiff's evidence with severity. It is settled that there is no rule of law that a man may always build up to an angle of 45 degrees, but in judging of the probable effect of a proposed building, the Court may not unreasonably regard the fact that an angle of 45 degrees would be left as prima facie evidence that there will be no substantial interference, and may require this presumption to be clearly rebutted by satisfactory evidence; but Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, apparently differing from his two colleagues, added for himself that so far as the rule of 45

degrees was concerned, he doubted whether that rule could be regarded even as a rough measure of the right of owner or occupier to ancient lights.

The general course of the law may now be considered as settled and definite, unless these appeal cases were upset by the House of Lords, but the application of that law to individual cases will, as hitherto, present controversial difficulties, as facts in each case will prove the determining factor on the result as to whether substantial injury has been or will be inflicted on the owner of ancient lights.

The decision will add to the difficulties of architects and owners in erecting buildings in London and other

towns.

PHILIP E. PILDITCH, Fellow.

(B.)

The decision of the Court of Appeal in this case is, perhaps, the most disturbing and the most disastrous which has been given for many years. Mr. Justice Jessel's decisions in light cases had laid the foundation of a principle which found favour with all practicalminded men, and there can be little doubt that had his career not been so unfortunately and abruptly closed we should, by this time, have been far ahead of any such decision as this latest one, upon which I desire to make a few comments.

Recent decisions of Mr. Justice Wright, who had evidently grasped the view entertained by Mr. Justice Jessel, embraced the principle-first, that a dominant. owner had no right to conclude that the old building of the servient owner could never be raised without inflicting an injury for which the dominant owner was

entitled to recover in a Court of Law. It is clear that if that theory could be sustained, all architectural improvements would be at a standstill. But, argued the Judges I have named, if the new building of the servient owner, carried to what height you please, leaves sufficient light for the ordinary business occupation of the dominant owner, no injustice is done to him by the increased height opposite.

The foregoing argument was, in fact, practically adhered to by Mr. Justice Joyce in the case under consideration. He found, as a fact, "that the defendant's "building, if erected to the height proposed, would not "materially interfere with the access of light to any "window on the first floor of the plaintiffs' premises, or "with any light to which the plaintiffs were entitled in respect of their basement," and, after referring to the other windows in the other floors of the plaintiffs' premises, his Lordship decided that "the plaintiffs' "premises would still, after the erection of the defend"ant's building, be well and sufficiently lighted for all ordinary purposes of occupancy as a place of business, "and that the action therefore failed."

66

66

On this judgment the defendant very naturally proceeded with his building to the height originally intended, and the plaintiffs' appeal against the decision. of Mr. Justice Joyce was heard on December 2nd and 3rd last, before Lords Justices Vaughan Williams, Romer, and Cozens-Hardy.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is certainly a startling reversion to lines which one had hoped had long since been relegated to their proper position.

Lord Justice Cozens-Hardy delivered the judgment of the Court, which, after traversing the findings of Mr. Justice Joyce, reversed his judgment and concluded that

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »