ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Is the lessee liable, and to what extent

1. (a) To repaint internally where paint has been damaged or worn to wood, even though it cannot be said that the woodwork painted will suffer or perish in consequence? (b) To touch up when, in the case of varnished paint, small blisters exposing wood exist?

2. To whiten ceilings (a) where old damp stains are visible, (b) when the ceilings are dingy, cracked, or black, so that a reasonably minded tenant would ask for such whitening?

3. To recolour where old colouring is much soiled and has a dirty appearance ?

4. To relay valley gutters, in which water stands for want of fall, even though the gutters otherwise are carrying off the water, and are not allowing wet to penetrate the roof?

5. To replace slates with broken corners or scaled surfaces, which, however, do not admit wet?

Generally speaking, can decorative repairs be asked for under this covenant if the decorations are in such condition that a reasonablyminded tenant would ask for their renewal or repair as being necessary for cleanliness and ordinary comfort in occupying the premises?

713

CLAIM FOR FEEDING STUFFS CONSUMED-DATE OF CLAIM.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 151, 152.)

The outgoing tenant of a farm held on a Michaelmas taking retains possession (as he is entitled to do by his lease) of the farm buildings and yards until the following Lady-day, for the purpose of threshing his corn and consuming his hay and straw. He has a claim under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, first, in respect of feeding stuffs consumed before the expiration of his tenancy at Michaelmas, and, secondly, he will have a further claim in respect of feeding stuffs which will be consumed during the half-year ending at Lady-day next.

Must the first part of the claim be made before Michaelmas? Or is the tenant entitled to defer it, and include the whole in one claim, to be made before giving up possession of the buildings and yards at Ladyday?

The question turns upon the construction of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, Section 2, Sub-section 2, which appears somewhat ambiguous.

714.

FORESHORE-OWNERSHIP-DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN ADJOINING

PROPERTIES.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 152, 153.)

Assuming that the properties A, B, and C, bounding the shore, own the foreshore ex adverso of their property, and the properties lie at an angle with the shore as on the annexed sketch, in what proportions do they own it?

Is there any decision to prove that the shore is proportionately distributed relatively to frontage?

How are the dotted lines to be determined so as to define the portion of the shore belonging to B? B's property is said to be "bounded by the shore." On what principle is the shore divided which lies between high water mark and B's property? The old high water mark was at one time close to the properties.

[blocks in formation]

NEGLECTED SEWERS-DAMAGE TO ADJOINING WORKS-LIABILITY.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 153.)

An Urban District Council adopted, four or five years ago, a new sewerage scheme for their district. To enable them to do this they obtained an easement through A's land (shown by ------ ). In carrying out their works they left all the old drains in (shown by. ), and did not connect to their new scheme. A works a quarry below, and is continually flooded by the water from these old drains. The Council's surveyor has

excavated on A's land, found this to be so, and has now connected the old drains with the system. Are not the Council liable for damage?

[blocks in formation]

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 153, 154.)

I am acting as valuer for the purchaser of an estate who is bound by the contract to take all hay, straw, manure, tillages, &c., by valuation. Upon settling the same I am requested to disclose details of quantities and price of all items. To this I naturally demur, contending that it is most unusual to give details showing how the amount of valuation is arrived at. Is my contention correct?

717.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, 1875, SECTION 308-SEWER-COMPENSATION.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 154, 155.)

An urban authority acting under Section 16 of the Public Health Act, 1875, has laid a sewer through a piece of land which is ripe for building, and the sewer is an improvement rather than otherwise to the freehold, as it is suitably placed for the drainage of houses that may be built, and does not cut up any sites; but a claim has been made for compensation, and a question has arisen as to the proper interpretation of Section 308, which provides as to compensation as follows:

"Where any person sustains any damage by reason of the exercise of "any of the powers of this Act, in relation to any matter as to which he "is not himself in default, full compensation shall be made to such "person by the local authority exercising such powers."

Must the compensation be confined to covering a liberal estimate of the damage done (including surface damage, and depreciation, if any, of the freehold) and not be made in respect of the easement, apart from any damage that its presence may cause-or does the mere fact of a person sustaining damage entitle him to be compensated for the easement in addition to the damage to the surface and to the freehold ? Which is the correct interpretation?

718.

REPAIRING COVENANT-LIABILITY OF LESSEE OF PORTION OF

PREMISES.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 155, 156.)

Would the following covenant by the lessee, in a repairing lease for 21 years, of the ground floor and basement of business premises cover the damage done by the crushing of brickwork carrying a pillar which supports girders, the girders running above or across the ceiling of the ground floor occupied by the lessee. The crushing took place in the basement, also rented by lessee.

And also will at all times during the said term keep the said premises in good and tenantable repair and the same in such good and tenantable repair deliver up at the determination of the said term.

The premises were not well built, but the lessees had full knowledge of the construction, their architect having acted as the architect in superintending the construction, and also in carrying out extensive alterations made by the lessees when they took the lease.

I contend that they have to repair the defective brickwork and make good any incidental damage.

719.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) ACTS 1883 TO 1900—
COMPENSATION UNDER PART 3 OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 157.)

The basis of compensation being "such sum as fairly represents the value "of the improvement to an incoming tenant;" is an outgoing tenant entitled to full compensation on his outlay, where an undue proportion has been applied to enrich the land on which the way-going crop will eventually be taken, or can he be "dilapidated" for not applying a sufficient quantity of manures, &c., to the remainder of the holding?

What provision can be made to meet such cases?

The point is especially of importance now that a tenant may claim for home-grown corn used on the holding. It was surely never the intention of the Acts that an outgoing tenant may farm solely for the benefit of his way-going?

720.

ROADSIDE DITCH-USER AS SEWER BY LOCAL AUTHORITY AND BY ADJOINING OWNER.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 158.)

Road

Hedge

Ditch

Road.

A detached house standing in its own grounds as sketch has a hedge next the road with a ditch into which the authorities drain the road. 1. (A) Who is the owner of the ditch?

(B) If the occupier, can the authorities require him to keep the ditch clear when they foul it as described above?

In a similar adjoining house the tenant pumps the overflow from his cesspit into the ditch, and contends he has a right so to do, as it has been done for many years,

The smell is intolerable, and the public passing through the rondi complain.

2. (A) Has the tenant the right he claims?

(B) If not, has the County Council power to stop the nuisance?

(c) The tenant pays sewer rate. There being no sewer laid in the road can he call upon the sanitary authority to empty the cesspit as often as occasion may require ?

721.

PARTY FENCE-LIABILITY OF LEASEHOLDER TO MAINTAIN.

Two suburban semi-detached houses were purchased from a builder (a direct lease being granted from the freeholder, a third party). The lease has strict repairing covenants, but nothing is specifically mentioned about fences. The back gardens are divided by feather-edge close-paling fencing. The portion between the two gardens has blown down. There were no erections against it. Am I right in my contention that it in a party fence?

If it is not, would it not be the property of the leaseholder in whose garden the nail-heads are ?

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »