has "maintaining and retaining walls" to support the road in some cases and the fields in others. These walls in the last year or two have given way in several places, and the county surveyor was asked to repair them; this he has been instructed by the County Council not to do. Previous to the formation of the County Council the road authorities always repaired the walls.

Being a "main road" ought not the County Council to repair the walls?

768.

DILAPIDATIONS UNDER YEARLY TENANCY-LIABILITY OF

TENANT.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 274, 275.)

Some old farm premises consisting of a brick built house and wooden barns, stables, &c., have been held on a yearly tenancy for 10 years, under an agreement which contains a covenant "to keep and deliver up in thorough order and repair." Under this covenant, and in the absence of any other repairing or repainting clause: (1) What are the liabilities of the tenant? (2) Can the following works be demanded?

(A) Painting and papering internally although done 18 months ago and in good condition.

(B) Graining and varnishing on wood where before so treated.

(c) A new stove in a room where no stove has been during the whole of the tenancy.

(D) Rehang sashes with new weights, the existing ones being light, but not through any act of the tenant.

(E) Tarring externally to barns, &c., although renewed only 12 months ago.

769.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) ACT, 1900-TEMPORARY PASTURES.

(For a Reply to this Query see p. 275.)

Section 1 of this Act gives a tenant the right to claim for matters comprised in the First Schedule to the Act, inter alia for laying down temporary pasture grass . . . .

Section 7 limits compensation for an improvement made before the Act comes into operation, which by Section 13 is 1st January, 1901, to such as could have been obtained before the passing of the Act of 1900, which in the case of the specific improvement referred to would be nil.

In the case of any other improvement comprised in the schedule there

would be no difficulty. In the case of forming temporary pasture or lea, the matter stands on a different footing. It is a continuing Act, which commences it is true with the sowing of the seeds before the 1st January, 1901, but which is being perfected and made more valuable every year it stands, some of which value would be attributable to the year 1901 and following years. Then again a tenant is at liberty to break up any such land. It he refrained from so doing it would seem that equitably he would be entitled to compensation.

In reference to the word made in Section 7, does the making commence with the seeding to grass or its attaining the age of more than two years?

I should be glad of an opinion as to whether a tenant can claim for land laid down to grass (i.e. seeded) before 1st January, 1901 ?

770.

RETAINING WALL-BY WHOM REPAIRABLE.

(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 275.)

The sketch below shows a road evidently cut out of the grass field which is on the slope. Is the wall which supports the bank of the field and prevents it from slipping down across the road repairable by the highway authorities or by the owner of the grass field?

I am aware that it is the custom in cases where part of a roadside wall is below road level and part above, that the owner of the land is liable for the repair to the wall above road level, and the highway authorities for the repair to the wall below road level. This is in the county of Derby and the road referred to is not in the parish award.

771.

PARISH ROAD-LIABILITY TO REPAIR.

An old road in a country borough has on one side of it cottages, most of which are 70 and 80 years old, and on that side the footpath is kerbed and paved. The carriage-way has always been kept in order by the local authority. On the other side of the road abuts a farm, an 1 no footpath or kerbing is made up along the frontage thereof. The farm is now about to be developed. The owner claims that the whole road is a parish road repairable by the inhabitants at large. The local authority claims that it is only a parish road so far as one side of it is concerned, and that the owners will be liable for the kerbing, channelling, paving, and general reconstruction of the road. Are the owners liable for any road-making, and, if so, for how much?

REPLIES.*

Replies to Query 733 (Vol. XI. p. 143.)

LANDLORD AND TENANT-FIXTURES-GARDEN EDGING TILES.

A.

It is quite clear the garden tiles are not removable by the tenant, nor is he entitled to any allowance in respect thereof unless expressly so agreed. He might as well want to take summer-houses and fencing.

No one ever heard of a tenant claiming to remove the living edging (as box, thrift, pinks, &c.) to garden walks, and this permanent substitute of tiles is part of the garden. On principle the tenant might just as well claim to stub up the gravel in the walks and remove it.

I am rather surprised that anyone should raise such a point. The tiles are not "fixtures," they are part of the design and laying-out of the garden itself.

F. A. PHILBRICK, K.C., Hon. Member.

B.

I think that such tiles are removable by the tenant at the end of his term.

W. BENNETT ROGERS, Fellow.

* Replies are, in all cases, authenticated by the name of the Member supplying the information asked for.

Replies to Query 734 (Vol. XI., p. 238).

ARBITRATION-JOINT AWARD OF ARBITRATORS WITHOUT
GOING TO UMPIRE.

A.

I am not furnished with a copy of the submission, and I assume there was nothing in it making the appointment of an umpire a condition precedent to the arbitrators proceeding with the reference. This being so, there was no obligation imposed upon the arbitrators to appoint an umpire until they found they could not agree, a time which never arrived. As to not having a hearing, if the valuers were experts and it was referred to them, as such, to decide from a view and personal observation, they were not bound to take evidence unless requested to do so (Bottomley v.. Ambler, 38 L. T., 545). And one of the parties, having simply waited the result of the reference, is not now entitled to set aside the award on the ground that there was no formal hearing.

J. H. REDMAN, Associate.

B.

Unless there is some special term in the reference, the arbitrators should give the parties an opportunity of tendering evidence, and should hear such evidence if tendered. Unless therefore A agreed to abide by the decision of the arbitrators without evidence, he can apply to upset the award. In some cases, where the reference states that the matter has been referred to named arbitrators because of their special skill, it has been held that the arbitrators are not obliged to hear evidence.

G. M. FREEMAN, K. C., Associate.

Reply to Query 735 (Vol. XI., p. 238).

LANDLORD AND TENANT-LAND SOLD FOR A BATTERY-RESIDENCE INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED.

The question does not state whether the purchase by the War Office was by voluntary agreement or under compulsory powers. If by voluntary agreement I do not know of any legal obligation on the part of the landlord (in the absence of any distinct covenants with the tenant as to the user of the landlord's land) to protect the tenant in the matter.

If the War Office purchased under compulsory powers the landlord would not have any power to make any claim except in respect of his own interest, and the tenant would be in precisely the same position as

any adjoining owner; that is to say, unless part of his holding were taken by the War Office he could not claim in respect of his interest for any depreciation of the value of his premises arising from the exercise of the statutory powers of the War Office, unless the construction of the works, as distinguished from the user, caused damage to his property. HOWARD MARTIN, Fellow.

Reply to Query 737 (Vol. X1., p. 239).

RATING-COUNTRY HOUSE AND LAND-DEFINITION OF
"AGRICULTURAL LAND."

The Agricultural Rates Order was issued for guidance of the Overseers when the Agricultural Rates Act was first passed.

Section 9 of the Act defines what land is to have the advantage of paying half rates, and it does not include "land occupied together with a house as a park.”

To draw the line is most difficult, and each case must be settled on its merits.

J. R. EVE, Fellow.

Replies to Query 738 (Vol. XI., p. 240).

RATING-REVALUATION.

Yes, certainly. When they have done so, if inequalities exist between the assessments of the revalued property and those not revalued, the Assessment Acts give ample power to the ratepayers aggrieved to get such inequalities remedied.

W. EVE, Fellow.

B.

An Assessment Committee can without doubt order any particular class of property in the union to be revalued, but such an act generally results in the revaluation of the entire union.

J. R. EVE, Fellow.