form an admirable basis of discussion, which would be likely to obviate possible disappointment, and the expenditure of funds to less than the best advantage. This by the way.

I have said that the judgments require careful study, and I have time only to refer to one point. One would like to know the unexpired term of the tenant's interest in this particular case, in view of the damage to the reversioners. Mr. Justice Wright's finding that the reversioners had (in a certain event) sustained £200 damage is hard to reconcile with his non-suit, because the special user of light is not so certainly material to them as to the tenants, and it is hard to differ from the Court of Appeal in their conclusion from this finding that "the house had been permanently affected in its letting value," and if so the damage done would surely be "material."

C. HERBERT BEDELLS, Fellow.

SECTION III.

PROFESSIONAL QUERIES.

Enformation is sought on the following points:

677.

BUILDING LINE OF SHOPS-ALTERED PLANS-HEIGHT OF
BUILDINGS.

(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 34.)

Plans for the erection of houses and shops in a street were approved by a District Council in March, 1899, the shops being one story and the house portion (which is set back six feet) three stories high.

The buildings have not been erected, and the owner has submitted plans for additions, which are for building the three stories over the shops.

The Council have disapproved the plans on account of the building line. Have they the right to do so?

Can there be separate building lines for different heights of buildings on one side of a street?

There is the required width across the street to the opposite buildings.

678.

MANSION AND PARK-RATING OF LODGES IN OCCUPATION OF OWNER'S SERVANTS.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 34, 35.)

Is there any authority for the contention by overseers that the owner of a mansion and park, of which he is also the occupier, is also the occu

pier of the lodges in the park of which he is the owner, the lodges being actually in the occupation of persons in his employment?

In the case in point the overseers, holding that the owner is also occupier, refuse to grant the owner (who is compulsorily rated) the 15 per cent. allowance on hereditaments including dwelling-houses under £8 rateable value, which he is allowed on other cottage property under £8 rateable value?

679.

URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL-ERECTING WATER TROUGH WITHOUT CONSENT OF ADJOINING OWNER.

(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 35.)

Has an Urban District Council power to erect a water trough by the side of the highway without the consent, and in opposition to the wishes, of the owner of the adjoining land?

Can any Member point to an instance of this having been done?

680.

RATING-ASSESSMENT OF COUNTRY MANSIONS, &C.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 35.)

In assessing a mansion and including gardens, pleasure-grounds, &c., for poor rate purposes, is it usual or not also to include in the same assessment a gardener's cottage situate within the garden walls?

Information is sought as to the practice in any particular parishes.

681.

WATER COMPANY-LIABILITY FOR CONTINUOUS SUPPLY.

(For Replies to this Query see p. 36,)

I occupy a house and garden in a borough in Scotland. Water is supplied by gravitation from the reservoir of the Corporation. The quantity is short, owing, as popularly supposed, to the carelessness of the Corporation in forming their new reservoir.

Anyhow, that authority advertises in the local papers that it will cut off all supply in certain streets from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., and do so.

For some weeks I have been without water all night. I have often come home to find no bath, no water for tea or boiling anything, a risk of cracking the boiler, no water in case of fire (for which hydrant I pay an extra 20s. a year).

If I paid by meter I admit the justness of refusing to supply, as the shopman may refuse to sell his goods, but I pay by rate on valuation. Is this a breach of contract by the Corporation?

Have I any remedy, either to claim compensation for danger and discomfort or to claim water ?

682.

OPEN SPACE AT BACK OF BUILDINGS-BOUNDARY LINE-BACK

STREET.

(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 37.)

To be in accordance with the by-laws of an Urban District Council for the erection of a domestic building, the open space at the rear of the premises must extend laterally throughout the entire width of such building, and be 15 feet from the building to the boundary of any lands or premises immediately opposite or adjoining the site of such building. Is the boundary wall of the premises across a back street, or the back street itself, the opposite property?

683.

WIDENING STREET-SETTING BACK- COMPENSATION.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 37.)

A building was erected twenty-five years ago upon the line of a back street, and has remained there until the present time, when the street is to be laid out.

Has an urban district council any authority to call upon the owner to take down such portion as is upon the street without allowing compensation?

684.

SALE OF BUILDING LAND-FORMING ADJACENT NEW ROADDEROGATION.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 37, 38.)

The owner (A) of a field sold a corner of it some few years ago, and the purchaser (B) erected two houses thereon. B's land was bounded on the north and east by the remainder of A's field, and on the west by a main road, and on the south by land belonging to another owner. A has recently sold the remainder of his field to C, who for the purpose of "developing" it has laid out a road from the main road along the north boundary of B's property. This will bring a public road close alongside one of B's houses (which are of a good class), and will necessitate the erection of

a higher and stronger fence for securing the privacy and efficient protection of B's property.

The conveyance containing no covenant of reservation, the following questions arise:

A. Does the construction of the road in the position indicated constitute a derogation from the grant to B?

B. Will B be liable for the half-cost of making up the road when taken over by the local authority?

685.

COVENANT-REPAIRS TO FENCES.

(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 38.)

Is the lessee right in assuming that the following lessor's covenant in the lease of a country house and grounds extends to fences to lawns and garden (a portion of the fences being a garden wall in very bad repair) ?

Lessor's Covenant. That the lessor will keep the outside walls and roof of the said dwelling-house, coach-house, stable, and buildings, including drains and other exterior parts of the said premises (except the glass in the windows and conservatory) in good repair and condition, fair wear and tear excepted."

When the lessee took the premises he complained of the state of repair of the fences; the lessor promised to get them repaired. Relying on the verbal promise of the lessor and the following written promise. "As soon as I receive lease signed I will give order to have fences put right," the lessee signed the lease. Some attempt at patching was made by the lessor, but the fences were never properly repaired.

Can the lessee retain the cost he has incurred from time to time in small repairs to fences (to prevent serious inroads of cattle) and the loss he has suffered to his crops and flowers through the insufficiency of the fences, out of moneys he has in hand of the lessor's (not being the rent of the house) ?

Would he be justified in permanently repairing the fences and retaining moneys he has in hand of the lessor's, in part payment of the cost of such repairs?

686.

TITHE ASSESSMENT - DEDUCTION FOR REPAIRS TO CHANCEL.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 38, 39.)

In the assessment for rating purposes of impropriate tithe belonging to a lay impropriator, who also owns the chancel of the parish church, for the maintenance of the structure of which he is responsible, and is also patron of the living, is the cost of repairs to the chancel a legal and proper deduction in arriving at the rateable value of the tithe?