Reply to Query 739 (Vol. XI., p. 240).

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY-LIABILITY TO TAKE OVER PRIVATE ROAD.

The highway authority cannot be compelled to take over the road. If the road is a new street the local authority can call upon the frontagers to repair, under Section 150 of the Public Health Act.

R. F. COLAM, Associate.

Reply to Query 740 (Vol. XI., p. 240).

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, 1875, SECTION 16--PUBLIC SEWERS THROUGH PRIVATE LAND-CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

The claim should be made after the works are carried out.

JABEZ MANN, Fellow.

Replies to Query 741 (Vol. XI., p. 241)

"TUBE" RAILWAYS-DAMAGE TO PREMISES-LESSEES'
LIABILITY TO REINSTATE.

A.

If the dilapidations are a necessary result of the construction or user of the railway I think the tenant is probably excused on the principle of Baily v. De Crespigny, L. R., IV. Q.B., 180, and the landlord should make his claim against the company for injurious affection. The fact that the tenant may not be bound to repair does not deprive him of his right to claim for injurious affection to his interest in the premises.

R. F. COLAM, Associate.

B.

Yes. The statutory powers of the tractual rights of the lessor and lessee. over against the company, and the lessor can do so if he prefers.

company do not affect the conThe latter can, of course, claim

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

C.

"When a party by his own contract creates a duty or charge upon himself, he is bound to make it good if he may, notwithstanding any "accident by inevitable necessity, because he might have provided against "it by his contract" (Paradine v. Jane, Aleyn, 26). The lessors can sustain such a claim, and the fact that the railway company has undertaken to compensate owners and occupiers for all damage done does not exonerate the lessees from their liability. This principle was laid down as above about the year 1640.

ROWLAND BERKELEY, Associate.

Replies to Query 742 (Vol. XI.,

p. 241).

AGRICULTURAL TENANCY-COMPENSATION FOR LAYING DOWN TO

PASTURE.

66

A.

If the claim is made for "permanent pasture" under the circumstances stated, it cannot be sustained. But in view of compensation being now payable under Part III. of the First Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act for laying down temporary pasture with clover, grass, lucerne, 'sainfoin, or other seeds sown more than two years prior to the deter"mination of the tenancy," then if the claim is not made specifically for "permanent pasture " it is a moot point whether the claim is not justified, at any rate for the land laid down seven years since. No doubt by "temporary pasture" was meant four or five years' leys or sainfoin, but not to extend to land put down to grass for a number of years as in this case, or why is permanent pasture retained in Part I. of the Schedule? On the other hand, in view of the wording of the above paragraph, it seems difficult to avoid allowing compensation on any land laid to grass that the tenant retains the right to plough. No doubt there will be considerable difference of opinion over this question. Assuming, however, that the claim made can probably be sustained, the querist had better call in the assistance of a valuer on the question of the value of the improvement.

HY. DUKE, Fellow.

B.

The tenant has no legal claim on his landlord. As to an equitable claim, if the landlord felt disposed to entertain it, the amount would depend upon the degree of success attending the operation. The value of a great deal of recently laid down pasture is doubtful.

GEO. BLENCOWE, Fellow.

Replies to Query 744 (Vol. XI., p. 242).

WIDENING OF ROAD-POWERS OF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

A.

The Urban District Council are, I think, correct in their contention, and under their by-laws appear to be justified in requiring the road to be widened.

Assuming that their by-laws are regularly and legally made, the only course open would be an appeal to justices, but I do not think there is a very great prospect of success.

DOUGLAS YOUNG, Fellow.

B.

Provided that the Urban District Council had adopted the Private Streets Works Act, 1892, as required by that Act, they are entitled to pave, &c. (see Section 6) the road in question; and for that purpose to require the owners to set back to the distance provided by their by-laws. The private road in this case appears to be a street within the definition, and the fact that it will not be used for residential purposes does not make it any less a street, neither does the fact that it is a cul de sac.

ROWLAND BERKELEY, Associate.

Replies to Query 745 (Vol. XI., p. 243).

RIGHT OF WAY-CONVERSION OF PRIVATE CARTWAY TO PUBLIC

USE.

A.

Unless the grant reserves the use of the right of way to the dominant owner and other special persons only, I cannot see how "A can prevent anybody crossing the private way for the purpose of getting to the path formed.

My answers to questions are as follows:

(A) No.

(B) No.

(c) No.

(D) It is generally considered that a cartway or bridlepath also includes a footpath, but probably a four-foot path would be sufficient; only if this quantity is fenced off it is possible more land would have to be given up for the cartway.

(E) I am afraid "A" can do nothing against the combination of the dominant owner and the District Council unless he has special power under the grant.

M. J. ROKER, Fellow.

B.

(A) No; because the grantor of an easement cannot prevent others using the private road unless such usage interferes with his own right of way.

(B) No.

(c) Not unless it can be shown that the gate has been locked from time to time.

(D) Yes.

(E) "A" should adopt the usual method of closing the gate, say one day each year, and allow only those to pass who have a right to do so. E. W. REBBECK, Fellow.

Reply to Query 746 (Vol. XI., p. 244).

AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT-SPORTING RIGHTS.

In their circular letter of 24th November, 1874, commenting on the Rating Act, 1874, the Local Government Board lays it down that where the right of sporting is not severed, that is to say, where the owner retains both the land and the right or lets them both to one tenant, the owner or occupier will continue to be rateable upon the same principle as theretofore, and accordingly the right of sporting should be treated as an element of value only in arriving at the value of the agricultural land, but in any other case the right will be dealt with under Section 6 of the Act of 1874, which provides that "where any right of sporting is severed from the "occupation of the land, and is not let, and the owner of such right "receives rent for the land, the said right shall not be separately valued "or rated, but the gross and rateable value of the land shall be estimated "as if the said right were not severed."

Where, however, the owner in reserving the right lets the same to a third party, this principle does not apply, and the right of sporting is then rateable as a separate hereditament, and the ordinary rules of law for determining the gross estimated rental and rateable value of other kinds of property will apply.

It follows that in the case put, the Assessment Committee are wrong in separately assessing the sporting rights over agricultural land, of which the owner is also occupier, and retains the right of sporting for himself, and the consequent result of making the owner pay the full rate instead of the half rate as provided by the Act of 1896 is not according to law.

H. DREW, Fellow.

Replies to Query 747 (Vol. XI., p. 245).

RATING OF GRASS LAND-AGRICULTURAL LAND OR PARK.

A.

I am decidedly of opinion that, for rating purposes, it would come under the heading of "agricultural land."

J. T. WOOLLEY, Fellow.

B.

The land, drive, ornamental water, and plantations all being in the occupation of the owner, makes the case rather complicated in view of the scant information as to all the circumstances and surroundings, but it may be contended either way. I think the present assessment equitable unless the land is, without question, a park.

JABEZ MANN, Fellow.

Replies to Query 748 (Vol. XI., p. 245).

AGRICULTURAL TENANCY-ALLOWANCE FOR STRAW AND

MANURE.

A.

(A) It would not be usual to make an allowance to the incoming tenant entering at Lady Day on a Michaelmas tenancy, for any benefit he might have derived from the consumption of the straw (it would probably be difficult to prove loss). In my opinion he could not obtain compensation for this, except by special agreement.

(B) This is a question of local custom; where roots are paid for on the principle of cost of production he would be entitled to the full value of the roots consumed; no doubt a portion of the manure has been exhausted by the roots, and it should be treated accordingly if the custom is to value the root crop.

(c) The incoming tenant should pay the rent, rates, and taxes on the arable land last Michaelmas (from which the outgoing tenant has received no benefit for that period), and also a proportion of the rent on the grass lands, having regard to the difference in value of the same between the six winter and six summer months.

G. LANGRIDGE, Fellow.

B.

This question is a little difficult to follow, but I gather that a farm which has hitherto been let as a Lady-day tenancy is to be turned into a Michaelmas one. That being so, my views are: