been in use in valuing mills, occupied by their owners, for entry in the valuation roll was to determine the capital value of the several mills by measuring the cubic contents of the buildings, and taking a rate varying from 1d. to 2d. per cubic foot, and adding the value of the heritable machinery, and then to ascertain the probable rent of the several mills by taking 7 per cent. upon the capital value so determined.

Held, (1) that this method of valuation was not impugned by the decision of the Valuation Appeal Court, in the case of Andrew Lowson Limited v. Assessor for Arbroath, March 2, 1901 (3 F. 466, 38, S. L. R., 496); and (2) that it did not follow from that decision, that all the other mills in the town were to be valued either upon a comparison between them and the mills dealt with in that case, or upon the basis of the various purchase prices paid for such other mills at various dates extending over a period of more than fourteen years, and under circumstances not fully before the Court.

Andrew Lowson Limited v. Assessor for Arbroath, March 2, 1901 (3 F. 466. 38, S. L. R., 496), distinguished and commented on.— Assessor for Arbroath v. Francis Webster and Sons (39, S. L. R., p. 578).

Valuation Cases-Values-Subjects not Let-Manufacturing Works-Oil Works-Mode of Ascertaining Yearly Value of Manufacturing Works-Expenditure on Ordinary Repairs -Expenditure on Renewals of Plant.-The annual value entered in the valuation roll of certain chemical works, the property and in the occupation of oil companies, consisting of retorts and other apparatus for the treatment of shale and for the refining of crude oil, had for some years been arrived at by taking 7 per cent. of the capital value of the works-either estimated by reference to the original cost, less depreciation, or ascertained by actual valuation— and adding thereto feu duty, insurance, and landlord's taxes. It was proved (1) that the profits of such companies varied greatly from year to year, and were mixed up with the profits of the shale mineral fields worked by the oil companies; and (2) that in addition to the sums annually expended on ordinary repairs, the tear and wear of the retorts and other machinery employed in such works necessarily involved a large annual expenditure on renewals.

Held, (1) That while in certain cases of a monopoly or quasi monopoly being associated with particular lands and heritages the principle of valuing such lands and heritages on the basis of the annual profits accruing therefrom is sound, the principle of valuing the buildings and heritable machinery used in manufacture on the basis of the annual profits of the manufacturer is in the ordinary case wrong, and in particular is inapplicable in the case of oil works, where the profits fluctuate greatly and are mixed up with the profits of the mineral fields supplying the shale. (2) That in valuing the

oil works by the existing method of taking a percentage on the capital value of the works, no sum was to be added to the percentage in respect of ordinary repairs as distinguished from renewals. (3) That having regard to the large annual expenditure necessarily incurred in this particular business on renewals of plant, 7 per cent. of the capital value of the works did not adequately represent the annual value; and (4) That, apart from exceptional circumstances, the annual value of such oil works should be ascertained by taking 101 per cent. of the capital value of the works-the percentage of 10 representing 6 per cent. on the capital value of the works for renewals and 4 per cent. for interest on the capital value, and adding thereto feu duty, insurance, and landloid's taxes.-Oakbank Oil Company Limited v. Assessor for Midlothian (39, S. L. R., p. 581).

Valuation Cases-Value-Subjects Let-Consideration other than Rent-Club Premises-Proprietor also Manager of Club at Salary-Salary Received only for Period Commencing more than a Year after beginning of Lease.-The proprietor of a house in 1899, let certain rooms in it to a workman's club, and with his family continued to occupy the rest of the house. The only writings instructing the lease were a minute of the club, bearing that the proprietor" had agreed to give the club a lease of part of his premises for £15 of yearly rental," and three receipts for the half-yearly rent payable under the lease. The proprietor was manager of the club, and received £2 a week, but he deponed that he had received a salary for the last three months only. The Valuation Committee, upon the ground that the club had to their knowledge been managed and conducted from the outset by the proprietor of the premises and his family, were of opinion that the minute of lease and receipts were not conclusive as to the annual value of the subjects, and from their knowledge of the letting value of similar premises in the neighbourhood fixed the annual value at £40. The Court refused to disturb the judgment of the Valuation Committee.-Stevenson v. Assessor for Fife (39, S. L. R., p. 585).

Superior and Vassal-Feu Contract-Clause of RedemptionClause of Pre-emption-Clause Entitling Superior to Resume Possession on Payment of Certain Sum-Legality of such Clause-Tenures Abolition Act, 1746 (20 Geo. II. c. 50), sec. 10.-A feu contract dated in 1850 contained a provision to the effect that the superior should be entitled, on giving six months' notice, to re-acquire the subjects for a sum not exceeding £650. In 1897 the superior gave notice to the vassals that at Whit-Sunday, 1902, he would re-acquire the subjects feued in terms of the feu contract. In an action of declarator at their instance, they maintained

that the clause founded on by the superior was illegal in respect of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Tenures Abolition Act, 1746, against clauses de non alienando sine consensu superiorum, or otherwise that it was in the same position as a clause of pre-emption, and that in virtue of Section 10 of the Act of 1746 such clauses were rendered illegal unless they provided for payment of the full value as at the date of pre-emption or redemption.

Held, (aff, judgment of Lord Kyllachy, Ordinary) that the feuars' contention was unfounded, that the clause was legal and must receive effect, and that consequently the superior was entitled to re-acquire the subjects in terms of the feu contract.-McElroy v. Du k Argyll (39, S. L. R., p. 666).

Entail-Powers of Heir in Possession-Lease-Tack-Trout Fishing. An heir of entail in possession cannot grant a lease of trout fishings as a separate right which will be effectual in a question with a succeeding heir of entail.

Entail-Powers of Heir in Possession-Lease-Tack-Salmon Fishings-Personal and Real-Possession-Offer to Renounce ultra vires Provision of Lease-Entail Powers Act, 1836 (Rosebery Act) (6and 7 Will. IV. c. 42, s. 1).—The Entail Powers Act, 1836 (Rosebery Act) enacts, Section 1: "It shall be lawful for the respective heirs of entail in possession to grant tacks of any parts of the lands, estates, or heritages contained in the entail for the fair rent of such lands or heritages at the period of letting, and for any period not exceeding twenty-one years.

An heir of entail in possession, without applying for the authority of the Court, entered into a lease with a salmon angling association, whereby he let to the association the salmon and trout fishings in the River C and certain tributaries thereof, which formed part of the entailed estate, for a period of twenty-one years. It was therein declared that the object of the association was to improve the fishings of the River C, that for this purpose it had been arranged that leases of the salmon fishings in other parts of the river belonging to other proprietors should be granted to the association, and that the fishing during the currency of the lease should be by rod only. There was a provision whereby the lessor and his successors in the entail should, after the conclusion of the first three fishing seasons under the lease, have a right to one-seventh share of the fishings belonging to the association on payment of one-seventh share of the expenses. The lease further provided that the right of the lessees as regards a portion of the fishings let should “cease and determine on the 31st of July in each year," and that "the lessor shall be entitled to enter into possession of, occupy, and use the said fishings, . . . . or to let the same to

one or more tenants for the remainder of such fishing season." It was further provided that with regard to one portion of the salmon fishings (which was then let to a third party) the right of the lessees should not come into operation for five years.

On the death of the lessor within a year of the granting of this lease the succeeding heir brought an action against the lessees concluding for the reduction of the lease.

Held, that the lease fell to be reduced as a contravention of the fetters of the entail, and as not within the powers conferred by Section I. of the Entail Powers Act, 1836 (Rosebery Act), in respect (1) that in view of the provision whereby the right of the lessees was to cease and determine on the 31st of Jnly of each year, it was not a lease for twenty-one years, but an arrangement for a series of twentyone leases, each for part of a year, and that these, in so far as applicable to the year now current and all future years, not having been made real by possession, were not binding on the succeeding heir; (2) that ex facie of the contract it appeared that the rent was not a fair one, since part of the return to the lessor was not rent, but the option of acquiring a right to one-seventh of the angling in the waters; (3) that a right of trout fishing was a personal privilege which could not be leased by an heir of entail except for the period of his own possession; (4) that the lease quoad, that part of the fishings of which the lessees were not to obtain possession until five years after the date of the lease was not effectual in a question with the succeeding heir, because it had not been made real by possession; and (5) that an offer by the lessees to hold these portions of the contract, which purported to lease trout fishings, and that part of the fishings of which possession was not to be given for five years pro non scripto, was no answer to the action for reduction, inasmuch as to sustain the lease without these provisions would be to bind the succeeding heir by a contract which neither he nor his predecessor had made.

Entail-Powers of Heir in Possession-Lease-Tack-Salmon Fishings-Entail Powers Act, 1836 (Rosebery Act) (6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 42), s. 1.-Opinions (per Lord Kyllachy, Ordinary, and Lord Kinnear) that an ordinary lease of salmon fishings is within the powers conferred by the Entail Powers Act, 1836 (Rosebery Act), upon an heir of entail in possession.-Earl of Galloway v. Duke of Bedford (39, S. L. R., p. 692).

Burgh-Dean of Guild-Demolition of Ruinous House-Expenses of Interdict by Tenant-Liability of Owner-Edinburgh Municipal and Police Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. cxxxii.), s. 166.-Section 166 of the Edinburgh Municipal and

Police Act, 1879, dealing with the removal of the occupants of ruinous houses and the demolition and repair thereof, provides that if the owner of a ruinous house fails to pull down or repair it within a specified time, the Dean of Guild Court may order its demolition or repair. In that event it is enacted that "all the expense of enforcing such removal . . . . . or of taking down such house . . . . . shall be paid by the owner thereof.

The owner of a ruinous house having failed to implement the order of the Dean of Guild to take it down, the Procurator Fiscal of Court, without previously executing a warrant which he had obtained for the removal of tenants, instructed a firm of contractors to execute the work. The tenant of the house presented an application for interdict, which was ultimately refused, with expenses. The tenant having proved unable to pay these expenses.—

Held, in an appeal, that the owner was not liable for them, in respect that they were not incurred in enforcing the removal of the tenant within the meaning of Section 166 of the Act of 1879. -Macdonald's Trs. v. Somerville (39, S. L. R., p. 724).