"hearing of the notice of application, together with a notice from the "Court of the date and time of hearing) may order that the said sum, "together with the costs, be recovered in manner provided."

It is also provided that any notice or document may be served by registered letter through the post. If the remittance of tithe rent-charge is made by post the payer is clearly not entitled to deduct the cost of the order or postage.

Although I hold the view I have expressed, I should never hesitate to call or send to anyone who, owing tithe rent-charge, objected to remit it by post, as few are so wrong-headed as to persist in an unreasonable demand when fairly met.

HARLEY M. GRELLIER, Fellow.

C.

This would appear to be a strictly legal question, but my views are, that as tithe issues out of the land it is payable on the land in the same way as is rent, because the land is the debtor (see Woodfall, 15th edition, page 423). If this view is correct, I conclude that the best way of dealing with a cantankerous tithe-payer would be to give him notice that you intended to be present on the most remote section of the land to receive the money, and he would then have either to put himself to the expense and inconvenience of attending to pay or he would have to send the money by post to save himself this trouble.

In such a case I do not think that he would be justified in retaining the cost of the remittance.

It is a matter for consideration how far the fact that the Tithes Act of 1891 has done away with distress on the land will affect the point in question, but inasmuch as the Definition Clause of the Act of 1891 states that "tithe "rent-charge means tithe rent-charge issuing out of the lands and "payable in pursuance of the Tithes Acts," it would seem that the land is still held the debtor, and that only the mode of recovery is intended to be altered.

E. A. RAWLENCE, Fellow.

Replies to Query 727 (Vol. XI., p. 141).

PURCHASE OF SURPLUS LAND BY RAILWAY COMPANY-
DEROGATION FROM GRANT.

A.

I think this question is one for a lawyer rather than for a surveyor ;: but it appears to me that the freeholder and lessee, who, as I understand the question, have actually under compulsory powers sold part of the property in question to the company for its present purpose could not in any event claim any further compensation from the company, because

compensation must be claimed once and for all for every head of damage which can be foreseen at the time of making the claim; which was no doubt in this case at the time the price paid by the company was settled, when the nature of the company's works could have been ascertained, or might have been foreseen, by the vendors or their representatives. But if the company's works have diminished the access of light and air to the other cottages held, at the time of the sale to the company, by lessees from whom the company bought no part of their holdings, I think those lessees, not having previously made any other claim, could make one now for injurious affection of their leasehold interest, under the 68th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, provided the terms of the original sale of the site of the cottages by the railway company were such as to imply a grant of the access of light and air to the sites over the land on which the obstruction is now placed. But this is purely a legal point as to which a surveyor can only express a very diffident opinion.

HOWARD MARTIN, Fellow.

B.

Assuming that what the company has done has been in pursuance of its statutory power, and in the reasonable exercise of such power, the only remedy of the freeholder and lessees is to claim compensation under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act in respect of the injuriously affecting the lands not taken.

J. H. REDMAN, Associate.

Replies to Query 728 (Vol. XI., p. 141).

BOUNDARY WALL-LIABILITY TO REPAIR.

A.

I think a reference to the Public Health Act of 1845 and the Incorporated Acts, more particularly the 75th and following sections of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act of 1847, will give the required information, as it deals with " any building or wall in a ruinous state, dangerous to passengers, or to the occupiers of the neighbouring buildings," &c., and prescribes the course to be taken by the surveyor thereof.

JAMES HOLDEN, Fellow.

B.

In London an intimation to the County Council would lead to the wall being taken down as a dangerous structure. If there is no such remedy B should consult his solicitor.

THOS. BLASHILL, Fellow.

C.

It appears to me to be an entirely legal question, about which a solicitor should be consulted. Proceedings in the Chancery division for an injunction against A to remove the trespassing portion of his wall and to abate the nuisance caused by its dangerous condition would appear to be the best course. It is possible that B may remove it himself, but scarcely advisable, as consequential damage may accrue to parts of the wall not overhanging. I do not think A would succeed in establishing an easement to overhang, but he might claim it.

ARTHUR HARSTON, Fellow.

Replies to Query 729 (Vol. XI., p. 142).

LANDLORD AND TENANT-DILAPIDATIONS-PAYMENT OF LANDLORD'S SURVEYOR'S FEES.

A.

The answer to this question appears to depend upon the form of the notice served on the leaseholder by the lessor.

Under the Conveyancing Act of 1882 a lessor is entitled to recover, as a debt due to him from a lessee, in addition to damages, all reasonable costs and expenses properly incurred by the lessor in the employment of a solicitor and surveyor or otherwise, in reference to any breach giving rise to a right of re-entry or forfeiture which, at the request of the lessee, is waived by the lessor in writing under his hand, or from which the lessee is relieved under the provisions of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, or by this Act.

If, therefore, the claim in this case came with the provision referred to, the leaseholder is bound to pay the landlord's reasonable solicitor's and surveyor's charges in respect of the claim and notice.

If, however, the claim was in fact merely a request to the tenant to do certain repairs in order to comply with the covenants of the lease, I believe the landlord is not entitled to be repaid his solicitor's and surveyor's charges by the leaseholder.

HOWARD MARTIN, Fellow.

B.

I am of opinion that a lessor can sustain a claim for solicitors' costs and surveyors' fees, properly incurred by the lessor, for preparing a claim for dilapidations, and notice, where under the covenants of a lease to repair, a breach has been committed by the lessee (Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1892, 55 & 56 Vict., c. 13, s. 2, sub-s. 1).

W. BENNETT ROGERS, Fellow.

Reply to Query 730 (Vol. XI., p. 142).

LANDLORD AND TENANT-SIX MONTHS' NOTICE-LUNAR OR CALENDAR MONTHS.

This notice would seem to be a good one. In Rogers v. Kingstonupon-Hull Dock Company, a stipulation for a "six months"" notice had been made, and the Court held that six lunar months was sufficient. As, also, the 23rd November is one of the local customary quarter or feast days, and therefore the quarter day but one before that on which the tenancy has to determine, the delivery of the notice before that day is sufficient, though less than a full half-year (Doe and Durant v. Doe and Howard v. Wausley).

F. PUNCHARD, Fellow.

Replies to Query 731 (Vol. XI., p. 142).

REPLANTING WOODLANDS.

A.

The chief reasons for delay are that the ground may be dressed and drained if necessary, and that seedlings may have a fair chance of asserting themselves, to the saving of planting. If the soil is dry, and there is no sign of disease or of insect pest, I see no reason for delay; but no planting operations should be conducted after this month unless the season is an exceptional one.

Before planting I recommend the collection and burning of all dead wood and refuse, and if there is fungus of any kind it should be as far as possible removed.

Again, if Scotch pine (fir commonly called) has been the past crop, do not plant with Scotch again. Larch, if the soil is suitable, will be better. This is not so important in respect of hardwoods.

B.

C. E. CURTIS, Fellow.

With regard to conifers it is desirable, under any circumstances, to defer replanting for, say, three years after clearing, otherwise there is great risk of the young plant being attacked by the tree weevil or other pests which attack conifers. If hardwood woodlands are wanted as game coverts, then the stools, if left in the ground, will of themselves produce undergrowth, but if the stools are removed in order that the area may be properly replanted, then it is advisable to give the land a year's rest.

Briefly I may add that, in the one case, first-class plantations would be the result, while in the other only second-rate; and I therefore consider it advisable to wait and to do the work in the best-known way.

WILLIAM MENZIES, Fellow.

SECTION IV.

LAW CASES.*

(1165.)

[CHANCERY DIVISION.]

RE HAEDICKE AND LIPSKI'S CONTRACT.

[JULY 16TH AND 17th, and AUGUST 10TH, 1901.]

Vendor and Purchaser-Leaseholds-Onerous Covenants-Contract for Sale-Disclosure—“ Vendor's Title accepted by the Purchasers" -Purchaser's Right to Possession-Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874 (37 38 Vict. c. 78).

In a contract for sale of ten leasehold houses with sixty years unexpired, let to weekly tenants at sums therein mentioned, after providing for the purchase money and acknowledging the receipt of the money paid as deposit, it was further stipulated that "The vendor's title is accepted by the purchasers, who undertake to pay all costs of this transaction."

The leases contained onerous and unusual covenants, and a proviso for re-entry on breach of the covenants. The purchasers were not informed, and did not know, that the leases contained any such covenants, and were not afforded any opportunity of seeing the leases prior to signing the contract.

The purchasers asked for a declaration under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, that a good title had not been shown, and for a return of the deposit.

Held, that the vendor was bound to disclose the existence of such onerous and unusual covenants, or, at least, to afford the purchasers an opportunity of examining the leases for themselves prior to the signing of the contract; that in such a case of failure of duty on the part of the vendor the stipulation in the contract that "the vendor's title is accepted by the purchasers" did not bind them to take the title, they having a

→ For notes on this case see pp. 13 and 16 ante.