then served upon the frontagers, who, within one month, (A) That the actual expenses have, without sufficient (B) That the final apportionment has not been made (c) That there has been an unreasonable departure Subsection (3). Objections under this section shall be determined in the same manner as objections to the provisional apportionment. If the final charges are not objected to, it is advisable to pay the money at once, for it is probable that interest will be charged at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum from the date of the final apportionment. Some local authorities make it a practice that if the money is paid within a stipulated time no interest is charged, but if, at the expiration of that time, the charges are still unpaid, interest is charged as from the date of the final apportion ment. The local authority must keep a register of these charges and payments, this register being open to inspection on payment of a small fee. An action cannot be brought by the local authority to Stock . Meaking, recover private street work expenses from a person after 81 L.T., he has ceased to become the statutory "owner" of the Rep. 80. premises. Plumstead Works r. Proceedings must be against the person who is Board of owner" at the time they are taking action. Although Ingolby, L.R. this is done the charge really takes effect from the date of the completion of the works, and not from the date of 8 Ex. 174. Corporation r. the final apportionment. If the person responsible to the Sunderland local authority was not the "owner" at the time the works were completed, he can recover the amount of the charge from the person who was the "owner" at that time. Alcock, 51 When all the street works have been completed to the satisfaction of the local authority and paid for, upon application in writing of the greater part in value of the owners of the houses and land in such street, the local authority must within three months declare such street a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large. After such declaration the responsibilities of the frontagers, for construction and maintenance of the street, are at an end. WM. H. OVERTON, Professional Associate. SECTION II. COMMUNICATIONS REFERRING TO PAPERS IN THE TRANSACTIONS," &c. On Mr. Bedells' Paper on "The Insurance of (Transactions, Vol. XXXIV., p. 297.) (A.) No form of insurance is of more importance, or of more general interest than insurance against risks of fire. The cost is extremely small compared with the advantages secured, and only the most careless or imprudent people omit now to obtain the protection it affords. The recent Papers and Discussions at The Institution have thrown a great deal of light on the subject, although these related chiefly to city insurances and the complications arising in the settlement of claims after fire losses. There appear to be about 70 offices in the United Kingdom for insurance against fire. The premium income is probably over 12 million sterling per annum, and the amount insured no less than five to six thousand millions. The net profits of the best offices are believed to be about 20 per cent. of the premiums, or between two and three millions per annum. There are no exact statistics available, but probably London and the great cities supply about one-third of the premiums and insured property, and small towns and country districts the remainder. It would not be difficult to show that the ordinary rates of premium from 18. 6d. per cent. to the hazardous rates of 4s. 6d. per cent., as agreed on by all the principal offices, and known as the "tariff system," operate very unequally. These are only roughly classified, and are not carefully settled on their merits, as in the case of the much higher premiums charged for mills, manufactories and special risks. Take, for example, the case of a well-built, detached and spreading dwelling-house of two or three floors, worth, say, £2,000. This is now charged the same premium as a tall house of five or six floors, with only one staircase (which becomes a mere flue on the outbreak of fire), standing with old houses adjoining on either side, possibly no party-walls or separation of roofs, and with risks from existing buildings across a narrow street. The risks of the latter class of house must be at least four times that of the detached house, yet both are usually charged alike. The office risk of loss must increase in some corresponding ratio to size and amount, yet no distinction is usually made. At present there is no recognised reduction in rate made for ordinary insurances in respect of modern construction, fire-proof flooring, fire-prevention appliances, or special separation of office risks and amounts. Surely, before long a more equitable scale of rates must be introduced. But it is after a fire has occurred that the insurers' troubles, and occasional sense of injustice, generally arise. His policy is one of indemnity up to any loss not exceeding the sum upon which he had paid his pre miums. Great caution and adequate inquiry are essential on the part of the offices, or they would suffer frequently from excessive claims by unprincipled insurers. But in his zeal for the offices the expert assessor often causes great and unnecessary irritation in purely honest cases. A building, costing, say, £2,000, has been totally destroyed, and the insurer to this amount expects the same sum. It cost him just £2,000 20 years ago, and will, at advanced building prices, mean a higher price for reinstatement. Oh no, says the assessor, your building was partly worn out-it needed repair, and had only three-fourths its original value, and he offers £1,500 in settlement. The insured employs his architect or surveyor, who prepares complete plans, specifications, and quantities for rebuilding, to prove the fairness of the claim. But the assessor is obdurate. The office may decline to reinstate, object to pay the surveyor's necessary costs, and refer the insured to his only remedy under the policy, a possibly tedious and expensive arbitration in which he, in any event, may have to pay his own costs. Usually the old policies bar an action in the courts, and the result is too often a compromise with a rankling sense of unjust treatment. Besides the revision of ordinary rates, much advantage would be gained even if the insured paid part or the whole of a moderate fee for an agreed or valued policy, the sums to be indisputable in the event of total loss: and the insured should be put on more equal terms for arbitration remedies in the event of disputes arising over partial losses. Moreover, under the present loose system of description-often taken down from the insured's rough and imperfect recollection, in a solicitor's or tradesman's office, without any inspection of the buildings-several dis |