832. LAND TAX ON FEE FARM RENT-AMOUNT PAYABLE. (For Replies to this Query, see p. 503.) A certain fee farm rent of £80 per annum is payable in a land tax parish, in which the rate is 18. in the £. The fee farm rent is liable to land tax. The person who pays the rent has been in the habit of deducting £4 in respect of land tax, but the correct amount of land tax payable is believed to be £3 16s. 2d., i.e. £80–£3 16s. 2d.= £76 3s. 10d. @ 1s. = £3 16s. 2d. A dispute has arisen. Which is correct? 833. SPORTING RIGHT-GENERAL DISTRICT RATE. (For a Reply to this Query, see p. 50k.) A sporting right of the net rateable value of £20 per annum exists in an urban district. A general district rate has been levied at 1s. in £. What is the amount of general district rate for which the sporting right is liable? It would be useful to know of a decided case on the point. 834. GRANT OF WAYLEAVE-WATER MAIN-RAISING LEVEL OF ROAD. (For a Reply to this Query, see p. 504.) A grant of wayleave was made many years ago to a water company on the usual terms to lay a water main from A to B. It is now proposed to make a road following the line of pipe. The city authorities require the level raised so that the depth of cover over the pipes will be increasedthe increase varying from 1 foot to 7 feet. The company hold that if the cover is so increased we must pay the cost of laying a new main from A to B, on the ground that the additional cover prevents reasonable access to their main. Is their contention correct? 835. OUTGOING FARM TENANT UNDER NO AGREEMENT OR LEASELANDLORD'S CLAIM. (For Replies to this Query, see p. 505.) A tenant on a farm of about 230 acres in Devonshire, without any agreement, is quitting at Michaelmas, 1903. Prior to his taking the farm several years ago a lease was prepared but never executed. The lease would have thrown upon the tenant the onus of repairing and keeping in repair all thatch at his own expense; he would also have been responsible for keeping the orchards fully stocked with good apple trees, to farm the land in a proper rotation of crops, and cultivate it in a husbandlike manner, and also keep all fences, gates, &c., in order. The farm is one of six composing a whole parish (excepting a few acres of glebe land), five of which, including the one in question, belong to the same landlord, and all of whose tenants sitting under agreements or leases are liable for keeping the whole of the thatch in repair. Has the landlord, at the expiration of the tenantcy, a claim against the outgoing tenant for the state of the thatch, which is very bad? Also for cross-cropping, foul land, and repairs to fences, gates, &c.? 836. FENCING ADJOINING COMMON LAND-LIABILITY OF Landowner. (For Replies to this Query, see p. 506.) A is the owner of land adjoining a range of hills on which there are common rights. A's predecessors in title fenced their land next the hills, but A has allowed the fence to decay. The commoners press A to restore the fence, as their stock stray through it and thence on to the highway. A contends that the fencing was done by his predecessors merely for their own convenience to keep their stock from straying, and that there is no liability on him to fence against the commoners' stock; and he does not now care to maintain a fence for his own purposes as he keeps no stock on the land. Usually, no doubt, landowners adjoining common land do fence their own land, and as a matter of fact A's predecessors and other owners bordering on this common fenced for their own protection, but is there, in ordinary cases, any obligation for them to do so as against commoners' stock on the common? There is a road leading through A's land from the high road across the common land, and some years ago when the fence of A's land next the hills was in repair, but the gate was not, the commoners subscribed and put up a new gate at their own expense. 837. PARTY-WALL-LONDON BUILDING ACT, SECTION 88. (For Replies to this Query, see p. 506) An agreement exists between a building owner and an adjoining owner to the effect that a wall built for a party-wall shall be used and paid for by the building owner. The building owner's wall rises above that of the adjoining owner, and the building owner, relying on Section 88, Subsection 11, of the London Building Act, boards over the nearer part of the adjoining owner's roof to protect it from damage, and, to save cantilevers, places some scaffolding thereon to raise the wall. There is no question of damage, but the adjoining owner claims compensation for the privilege. What are the building owner's rights? Has he committed a trespass? 838. SELLING HAY AND STRAW AT EXPIRATION OF TENANCY-CUSTOM. (For Replies to this Query, see p. 507.) In a portion of Derbyshire it is the custom, in the absence of any agreement, for the outgoing tenant to be allowed consuming price for hay and straw left on the premises. For what he sells off he is dilapidated, the measure of dilapidation being the manurial value of what is sold. Nevertheless, outgoing tenants frequently sell off all hay and straw, and pay the dilapidations, as they can make more of it in that way than by leaving it on the farm at consuming price. It is admitted by valuers that the mere manurial value, based on the usual tables of analysis, does not compensate the incoming tenant If the landlord, as incoming tenant, makes no claim in respect of the hay and straw sold at the time the valuation is made, can he recover by action for damages, and what is the amount of damage actually sustained? The valuation is under custom, and not under the Act. 839. LICENSED PREMISES-SEWER EXPENSES-LESSEE'S LIABILITY. (For Replies to this Query, see pp. 507, 508.) The freeholder granted a lease of licensed premises for 50 years from 1892 in consideration of a premium, rent reserved and covenants on behalf of the Lessee. The lease contains covenants inter alia To pay land tax, if any, sewers rate and all other rates, taxes, and assessments, and impositions whatsoever, parliamentary, parochial, or otherwise, which now are or at any time during the said term hereby granted shall be payable by the owner or occupier in respect of the said premises. To pay the costs of making, supporting, repairing, and amending party and other walls, &c., sewers, drain pipes, water-courses, paths, and appurtenances now or at any time during the said term belonging to or used by the occupiers of the said demised premises and will indemnify the lessors from and against same. The Urban District Council have recently paved the footway, kerbed, channelled, and made up the roadway, and laid in new sewers, and have charged the frontagers the costs in the usual manner. The demand notice was sent on to the lessee for payment, and has been returned by him, saying his solicitors advise it is an outgoing for the freeholder. Is this contention correct, or are the covenants in the lease sufficient to throw the burden on the lessee? 840. ROADSIDE WASTES-POWERS OF OWNER AND LOCAL AUTHORITY. (For a Reply to this Query, see p. 508.) What power or right have the Rural District or other Councils to deposit stone on pieces of wastrel by the roadside ? Also, has the owner of adjoining lands the right to fence in such pieces of wastrel? If not, has the Rural District Council? 841. AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS-CLAIM FOR FEEDING STUFFS BREWERS' GRAINS. (For Replies to this Query see pp. 508, 509.) In dealing with claims for feeding stuffs under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, is it usual to make any allowance in respect of grains fed by milch cows? If so, on what scale? Grains are not named in Lawes and Gilbert's table. 842. ADJOINING OWNERS-REPAIRING FOOTPATH-POWERS AND LIABILITY. (For Replies to this Query, see p. 509.) A is the owner of a park enclosed by a stone wall. The park boundary on one side is an occupation lane, D, giving access to the park on the one side and to the fields belonging to various owners on the other side. The occupation lane has never been repaired by the district authority, but a public footpath, E, which runs through it on the side next to the park was repaired by the then local board of health some 16 years ago. B and C are owners of land with frontages to the lane D, C has permitted people to deposit rubbish in the lane D on the length of his frontage until the surface of the lane at points F has been raised a foot or more above the level of the adjoining public footpath E, to the danger of the users of the footpath, and with the result that when rain falls it drains towards the footpath, which becomes at times unuseable. C will not remove the rubbish deposited on the lane in front of his land, so B had no alternative but to raise the level of the footpath to that of the lane, both on C's portion and his own, if it was to be of use in wet weather to his household and the general public. B was proceeding with the work of raising the footpath when A protested against its being raised, as tending to "lessen the protective value of "the park wall to a corresponding extent," and he threatens legal proceedings unless the work is discontinued. Is A the possessor of any rights which justify him in threatening legal proceedings against B for raising the height of this public footpath so that it may be useable by all without inconvenience. CRICKET CLUB PAVILION ON VILLAGE GREEN-ADJOINING (For Replies to this Query, see p. 510.) A client of mine owns a house fronting on to an old village green. The local cricket club is erecting a pavilion, consisting of an old tram-car on a brick foundation, on the green directly in front of his house. The club has obtained the consent of the lord of the manor. My client objects to this erection, can he by any means cause its removal? 844. COPYHOLDS-ENFRANCHISEMENT. (For a Reply to this Query, see p. 511) In respect of valuations for enfranchisement of copyhold tenements, what customs obtain as to multiplication or division of— 1. Quit rents, 2. Fines certain, in the cases of (A) Joint tenants, (B) Tenants in common? |