February 28, 1918.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

4S8

industry; and in view of the experimental precautions
that have been in operation, with the unwillingness
(which has been manifested in some quarters) to comply
with the regulations, Very interesting new evidence may
be expected. The precautions referred to were suggested
at an earlier stage of the enquiry, and have been given
several months’ trial.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.

COURT OF APPEAL—February 15.

Before Lord Justice Vaughan Williams and Lord Justice
Kennedy.

Extraordinary Traffic on High Roads.

Morpeth Rural District Council v. Bullocks Hall Colliery
Company Limited.—This was an appeal by the defendants
from an order made by Mr. Justice Rowlatt at Chambers
with regard to the delivery of particulars of a statement of
claim. The action was brought in respect of extraordinary
traffic. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
had conveyed coal along the Bullocks Hall road by
means of a steam traction engine with a trailer attached,
and that by a certificate of their surveyor it appeared to
the plaintiffs that, having regard to the average expense of
repairing highways in the neighbourhood, extraordinary
expenses amounting to the sum of £801 had been incurred
by the plaintiffs in repairing Bullocks Hall-road by reason
of the damage. The defendants took out a summons for an
order on the plaintiffs to deliver further and better par-
ticulars of the statement of claim as follows, viz.:—(a) Of
the average expense for the past five years, stating/the cost
of labour, the establishment charges, and the nature and
amount and cost of materials ; (6) of the highways in the
neighbourhood; (c) of the extraordinary expenses amounting
.to the sum of £801, showing (1) how the sum of £801 is
arrived at, (2) the average expense of Bullocks Hall-road
for the past five years, and stating the cost of labour, the
establishment charges, and the nature and amount and cost
of materials. The Master made an order for further and
better particulars as asked, but omitting from (a) the words
« stating the cost of labour, the establishment charges, and
the nature and amount and cost of materials," and also
omitting (c) (2). Mr. Justice Rowlatt affirmed the order of
the Master. Tne defendants appealed.

The Court varied the order of the learned judge.

Lord Justice Vaughan Williams said that so far as
concerned particulars of the average expense for the past
five years, stating the cost of labour, the establishment
charges, and the nature and amount and cost of materials—
that was to say, the particulars marked (a) in the
summons—he thought that they were, strictly speaking,
particulars of the plaintiffs' claim. He thought, therefore, that
the words which had been struck out by Mr. Justice Rowlatt
in that part of the summons should be restored, and that the
plaintiffs should give the best particulars they could. With
regard to the particulars marked (c) (2)—that was to say,
particulars of the average expense of repairing Bullocks
Hall-road—they seemed to him to relate rather to the
defence than to the claim. He thought they should leave
Mr. Justice Rowlatt's refusal to order those particulars
unaltered.

Lord Justice Kennedy delivered judgment to the same
effect.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

CHANCE RY. DIVISION.—February 5.

Before Mr. Justice Joyce.

Newbiggin Moor Mining Rights.

Sidney v. Waddilove.—A settlement was arrived at in
this action. The plaintiffs, Mrs. Emily Sidney, Mr. Thomas
Dawson, Mr. Robert Robinson, Mr. Edward Nicholson, and
Mr. Moses Taylor claimed as trustees under a deed of trust
of May 14, 1896, for the owners of Newbiggin Moor, in the
county of Northumberland, to establish their title to the
moor and to restrain the defendants, Mr. George Hope
Waddilove, the Newbiggin Colliery Company, and Lord
Vernon, of Kinderton, from trespassing on or under the
moor and taking coals therefrom. The plaintiffs alleged
that, for 100 years and upwards, they and their predecessors
in title had been the owners in fee simple and in possession
of Newbiggin Moor, and as such owners, were entitled to all
mines and minerals thereunder. The defendant, Mr.
Waddilove, claimed, as lord of the manor of Woodhorn, to
be the owner of the moor, and in 1908 granted the colliery
company the exclusive right of mining for coal under the
common. Lord Vernon, who claimed, as lord of the manor
of Newbiggin, to be owner of all minerals under the moor,
since the commencement of the action had conveyed all his
interest in the land in dispute to Mr. Waddilove, and did
not appear at the trial. The plaintiffs, it was stated, could
trace their title back to the 14th century, and the stint-
holders, or freeholders, had exercised every right of
possession and enjoyment over the moor, as was proved by
accounts and records kept by the agents of the stintholders
since the 18th century.

Mr. Astbury, K.C., on behalf of the defendant Mr.

Waddilove, said that he was prepared to admit the plaintiffs'
title. The colliery company also would admit that the
plaintiffs were entitled to require them to accept a lease of
the mining rights. As between the plaintiffs and Mr.
Waddilove there would be no order asked for as to costs,
but the costs of the colliery company would be taxed and
paid by the plaintiffs and Mr. Waddilove in equal shares.

Mr. Justice Joyce said that the order would be in terms
of minutes to be signed by counsel.

February 7.

Before Mr. Justice Eve.

Ownership of Minerals.* Severance.

Mitchell v. Mosley.—In this case the plaintiff claimed a
declaration that she was entitled, as tenant for life, to the
mines and minerals under certain lands in Manchester. By
two indentures of 1791 the predecessor in title of the
defendant assured to the predecessor in title of the plaintiff
certain land in Clay don in the parish of Manchester con-
taining about 10| acres. In neither deed were the minerals
excepted, and in each of them a yearly rent was reserved to
the vendor of one-fifth part of the value of all the ironstone
which should be raised out of the land. At the date of the
deeds the coal and cannel were leased for 200 years from
1740, but there was no mention of such lease in the deeds
except in the vendor's covenant against encumbrances. In
1828 part of the land was conveyed back to the defendant's
predecessor in title, and in exchange two other pieces of
land containing about 13,700 square yards were granted to
the plaintiff's predecessor, but again no exception was made
of the minerals, though the grant was made subject to the
lease. The defendant, Sir Oswald Mosley, denied that the
reversion of the premises demised by the lease of 1740 was
vested in the plaintiff. He alleged that the rents could not
be apportioned and that the plaintiff's claim was barred by
the Statute of Limitations.

Mr. Justice Eve, in giving judgment, said in his opinion
the defendant failed in his first contention. He did not
think there were any circumstances from which an intention
to except the reversion could be implied, nor did the deeds
themselves raise such an implication. There was, therefore,
a severance of the reversion as to part of the lands of which
the plaintiff was tenant for life in 1791 and as to the rest in
1828, and prima facie on each severance the rent reserved
by the lease became apportionable—Coke (s. 222, 148) ;
West v. Lascelles (Croke t. Eliz., 851), and as at the
respective dates of severance—Salts v. Battersby (1910
2 K B., 155). His lordship said prima facie, because the
defendant raised a further defence that the rent reserved
by the lease of 1740 was not of an apportionable nature.
But there was no substance in that defence. The appor-
tionment might be a matter of some complexity, but
it was fallacious to argue that the difficulty of appor-
tionment could alter the character of the rent. The
defendant finally relied on section 9 of the Real
Property Limitation Act, 1833, and the question arose
under the covenant for payment whether the rent
was in the nature of a minimum dead rent, payable
whether coal was raised or not, or whether it was a
royalty. If it was a royalty, section 9 was no answer to
the plaintiff's claim. If it was a dead rent, then the
defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim was barred by
section 9. His lordship thought that the rent was a dead
rent. That being so, the question arose whether the case
fell within the section. It was argued that the defendant
had not brought the case within the section because he
had not proved that the plaintiff's apportioned share of
the rent would amount to the yearly sum of 20s. But his
lordship did not think that was the true construction of
the section, and he could not hold in a case of severance
that it was obligatory on the person who had in fact
received the rent to prove that the apportioned share of
the claimant exceeded 20s. before he could avail himself
of the section. But on the facts and the authorities, his
lordship saw no answer to the plaintiff's main contention
that there had never been any wrongful receipt of the
rent, and therefore that time had never begun to run.
The severance of the reversion did not apportion the rent.
No notice of severance was given to the lessee, and the
continued payment of rent to one of the reversioners was
a good payment for which he obtained a valid receipt.
The condition of things, therefore, which would have
brought the section into operation never existed. The
result was that the defence failed, and there would be a
declaration as asked.

KING’S BENCH DIVISION.—January 15.
Before Mr. Justice Horridge.

Mineral Rights Duty.

H.M. Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Joicey.—In
this case the Commissioners of Inland Revenue appealed
from a decision of a referee appointed under the Finance
Act, 1910. The respondent to the appeal (Mr. James
Joicey) had been assessed for Mineral Rights Duty in respect
of certain mineral rights in land in the manor of Lanchester,
Durham, and the referee to whom he appealed held that no
such duty was payable. When the matter was previously
before his lordship, Mr. W. O. Danckwerts, K.C. (for Mr.
Joicey) took a successful preliminary objection that, under

the existing rules of the Court, the Commissioners had no
right of appeal. The matter was taken to the Court of
Appeal, where the objection was overruled. It appeared
from the special case stated for the opinion of the Court
that on September 1, 1897, Mr. Joicey demised to the South
Moor Colliery Company Limited the right to work minerals
under his land. Mr. Joicey was assessed at £500, the
Mineral Rights Duty claimed being .£25. The referee held
that the demise to the colliery company was not a right of
working minerals nor a mineral way leave, and, therefore,
was not assessable to Mineral Rights Duty.

Appealing against this holding, the Solicitor-General
said that the point raised was whether, when a surface
owner like Mr. Joicey, who was not, himself, the proprietor
of the minerals beneath the surface, made a grant, to lessees,
of the mineral rights and the liberty to work the minerals with-
out leaving support to the surface, in consideration for rent
at so much a ton, such a transaction left the surface owner
liable to mineral rights duty. The Commissioners' case
was that Mr. Joicey was liable to be assessed on the rental
value of the right to work the minerals, and they said the
indenture of September 1, 1897, was a mining lease within
the meaning of section 24 of the Finance Act. By a custom
of the manor (added the Solicitor-General), in spite of the
copyholder's possession, the lords of the manor could
exercise their right within such limits as were consistent
with their not letting down the surface. Mr. Danckwerts
said the minerals really belonged to the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, who held the mining rights. Mr. Joicey
had merely given the company leave to work the minerals
under his land. He had no interest in the minerals.

His lordship, giving judgment, said in his opinion the
payment, called rent under the indenture, was really rent
paid in respect of the right to work minerals and let
down the surface. No doubt if the leave had not been given
the colliery company could not have worked out so much of
the minerals as they could now, having regard to the
advantages of their indenture.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs, and the Commis-
sioners were given leave to take the case to the Court of
Appeal.

THE FREIGHT MARKET.

The outward freight market on the north-east coast has
been moderately active this week. Charters are based on
somewhat easier figures, which are indicated by the following
typical rates for Tyne loading:—London, 3s. 7id. to
3s. 10|d.; Hamburg, 4s. 3d. ; Havre, 5s. 6d.; Bordeaux,
6s. ; and Genoa, 10s. 7|d. to 10s. 6d. Practically no prompt
business is doing Balticwise. At South Wales chartering
has been rather slower, loading turns being exceedingly
difficult to arrange owing to the congestion now prevailing
at the docks. Rates for all directions—especially for the
Italian and nearer Mediterranean ports—are rather easier.
At the Clyde there is a moderate volume of business at
steady figures. The Humber market is weaker for the
Baltic and Mediterranean, and quiet coastwise. Home-
wards, a good average amount of chartering is recorded.
The Black Sea market is very flat, owing to the high prices
of grain asked as compared with selling values in the con-
suming markets. The Danube and Azof are similarly
affected. Eastern markets are dull, with a slow demand.
The Mediterranean and ore trades are steady. America and
the River Plate ports are dull and unchanged.

Tyne to Alexandria, 3,800,12s.; Boulogne, 2,100, 4s. 10|d.,
Derwenthaugh loading; 2,100, 4s. 7id.; Bilbao, 1,400,
6s. 10|d.; Bordeaux, 1,900, 6s.; 2,700, 6s.; 2,200, 6s.; Calais
2,000, 4s. 6d. ; Chantenay, 1,800, 6s. ; Carthagena, 2,000,
9s. 9d. ; Dieppe, 1,800, 5s. l£d. ; Genoa, 4,500, 10s. 74d. ;
3,000, 10s. 7|d.; 3,000, 10s. 10|d.; 5,000, 10s. 6d. ; Gibraltar,
3,000, 8s. 3d.; Hamburg, 2,700, 4s. 3d.; Huelva, 3,000,7s. 6d.;
Havre, 1,800, 5s. 6d.; Honfleur, 1,400, 6s.; London, 1,800,
3s. 9d. ; 2,700, 3s. 9d. ; 1,300, 3s. 10|d. ; 1,300, 3s. 7|d. ;
2,100, 3s. 9d.; Lisbon, 2 200, 7s. 9d. ; Las Palmas, 1,400,
9s. 6d. ; 1,900, 9s. 6d. ; Lubtck, 2,000, 6s. 3d. ; Marseilles,
2,750,9s. 3d. ; 3,300, 9s. 7|d.; 2,300, 9s. 7|d.; Monaco, 1,700,
10s. 9d. ; Naples, 3,000, Ils. ; Port Said, 5,000, lie. 6d. ;
Ils. 6d., March, from Dunston ; Rotterdam, 1,200, 5s. ;
Reggio, 2,100, Ils. 9d. ; Savona, 6,500, 10s. 3d. ; Spezzia,

2.600,	10s. 9d.

Cardiff to Alexandria, 3,600, 12s., March 3; Buenos Ayres,
16s. 9d.; Bahia Blonca, 5,000, 18s., March 5-15 ; Bordeaux,
2,100, 7| fr., 500, March 1; 3,200, 6| fr., 500; 1,600, 7± fr.;
Calais, 2,900, 5s. 3d., ppt.; 2,200,5s. 6d., early March; Caen,
700, 6s. 3d.; 720, 6s.; Cape Verds, 5,500, 10s. 3d., early
March; Devonport, 2,600, 3s. 3d , Admiralty; 2,600, 3s. 6d.;
Genoa, 5,000, 10s. 6d., ppt.; 3,600, 10s. 6d., ppt.; 4,300,
10s. 3d.; 3,600, 10s. 3d., ppt.; 3,000, 10s. 3d.; Gibraltar,
2,500, 5s. 6d., Admiralty; 1,600, 8s. 9d , ppt.; 1,400, 8s. 9d.,
March 1; Granton, 700.6s.; Hauibowline, 1,900, 3s. 9d. j
Havre, 2,800, 5s. 9d.; Liverpool, 1,600, 3s. 6d.; 1,200, 3s. 6d.;
La Pallice, 2,800, 6^fr.; Lough S willy, 2,200, 4s. 6d.,
Admiralty ; Milazzo, 2,600, Ils. 6d.: Malaga, 2,400, 9s. 4£d.,
60; Malta, 2,200, 9s. 9d., ppt.; 8s. 9d., March, Admiralty;
2,700, 9s. 9L; 3,200, 8s. 3L, f.d., end March, Admiralty;
Madeira, 2,700, 9s. 6d. ; Monte Video, 5,500, 15s. 7id., end
March; Marseilles, 3,400, llifr., March 12; Naples, 5,000,
10s. 10|d.; 5,000,10s. l|d., 4 900,10s. l|d.; 800, March; Oran,

1.600,	ll|fr.; Porto Vecchio, 2,500, 10s. 9d., 600, March 1;

Port Said, 4,800, Ils. 4|d., March 1; 5,000, Ils. 3d., early
March ; Pau, 750, 6s.; Pernambuco, 5.000, 18s., March 5-15 ;
Rio de Janeiro, 4,800, 17s.;	6,500, 17s. 3d. 300;

River Plate, 5,000, 16s. 9d., March 13; 3,800, 16s. 6d., mid-
March; 4,000-4,500, 16s. 6d., early March; 3,800-4,200,
16s. 6d., March 15-31; 4,200, 16s. 6d., mid-March; 5,000,
16s. 6d., March 15; Savona, 5,000, 10s. 6d., ppt.; 3,600