January 21, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
96
THE LONDON BUILDING ACT.
A “PARTY STRUCTURE” QUESTION.
On Tuesday, at the City of London Court, Hr. Commissioner Kerr gave his decision in the action brought by Alderman Sir Horatio Davies, M.P., to set aside an award (Estates Gazette, January 14).
The learned Commissioner said that the foundation of the proceedings was the notice of September 5, 1898, given by the building owner to the appellant (Sir Horatio Davies). In it the proposed work was specified to be to take down and rebuild “the party structure” therein referred to. The appellant’s first objection was to the second paragraph of the first head of the award, which provided that the words “ party structure ” were to be understood as applying to the whole party structure, including such portions of it as were coloured blue on the drawing marked “A” attached to the award. As the portions of the alleged party structure coloured blue were admittedly not a party structure, but the property of the appellant, he was obliged so far to sustain the appeal and to strike out of the award the second paragraph. The second paragraph of the award was by consent of both parties to be amended by adding thereto the words from section 95, sub-section 2, B, viz., that “a fair allowance, in respect of the disturbance and inconvenience caused to the adjoining owner, shall be borne by the building owner.” The appellant’s next objection was to the second section of the fourth head of the award, providing that the hoardings therein mentioned were not to encroach upon or project into the premises of the appellant for a greater distance than 2ft. 6in., measured from the north face of the new party structure. The appellant contended that by building the party wall in¡ the manner described by him a space of 6in. and not 2ft. 6in. would be sufficient. Upon hearing the evidence he (the learned Commissioner) had arrived at the conclusion that the 2ft. 6in. mentioned	was essential to the
proper construction of the new party structure. He	must therefore dismiss
the appeal so far as it related to the fourth head of the award. The appellant’s next objection was to the sixth head of the award, providing that the building owner might build the new party structure to a greater height than the old party structure. As his doing so would involve the destruction of the alleged party structure, the property of the appellant, he (the Judge) must again so far sustain the appeal, and strike out that head of the award. It was unnecessary to say anything upon the objection stated by the appellant to head three of the award, except ■that the pulling down and rebuilding must be confined■ to what was admitted by both parties to be a “party structure.” No order was made as to costs.
TOO LATE FOR CLASSIFICATION.
mo AUCTIONEERS and VALUERS.—Ad-
-L vertiser, aged 26, energetio and trustworthy, requires SITUATION ; well experienced in rent collecting, ejectments, inventories, preparing catalogues, and general auction sale work; good character and references; moderate salary.—Apply J. Kemp, 11, Chapel-place, Long-lane, Borough, S.E.
FARMERS
WHO INTEND GROWING POPULAR KINDS OF
PEAS, BEANS, POTATOES
and other Yegetables for market, should write to us for a trade price list, state their requirements, and special prices will be quoted for large lots.
SAMPLES ARE FINE AND IN GRAND CONDITION THIS SEASON.
HARRISON AND SONS,
Seed Growers, LEICESTER.
NOW READY.
Crown 8vo.	Price 3s. 6d. net.
NEW (THIRD) EDITION.
A HANDBOOK OP
THE LAW OF DISTRESS
(With Index and List of Cases),
By G. ST. LEGER DANIELS, LL.B.,
And of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law.
FRANK P. WILSON
6, St. Bride Street, Fleet Street, London E C,
.•״•■---- . ״״״,״״_—
Houses, Form E, Public Houses, and Form D, Furmsnea Houses, with endorsement, 3s. per quire, cr 2d. each, AGREEMENTS stamped at Somerset House, Is. each document.—Stationery	Department, “Estates
Gazette” Office, 6. St Bride-street London, E.O,
commission claim as to real property would
surely have his letter or agreement stamped, though in the case of merchandise it might be * otherwise. The point whether any commission would have been necessarily earned at all seems rather ingenious than substantial. The question surely is not whether commission might or might not have been earned, but whether, as a matter of fact, it was earned upon orders bona-fide given! The contract being “ made in Germany ” complicates the issue, but does it exempt the plaintiff from conforming to English Inland Revenue laws? By-the-bye, I understand that when a document is rejected for want of a stamp, an appeal usually lies ; but there is no appeal in the High Court from the ruling of a judge that a document is sufficiently stamped, and the same rule applies in County Courts. The only remedy in such a case seems to be to■ submit a copy of the document in question to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for their ruling, and to appeal if thought advisable under sections 12 and 13 of the Stamp Act of 1891.
The new year is still very new. It will probably be a good deal older before—wars and rumours of wars, Dreyfus possibilities, and the future of the Lyceum given “ in ”—a more important event is chronicled than the inspection by the Emperor of Austria of the new weaving machinery of which we have all heard. The wonderful invention of photographic weaving cannot, of course, be fully understood from a brief description, but the! main fact is, it seems, that it will under the new methods take but five hours to accomplish the work which formerly required years to do. This is the most up-to-date and striking of all the many changes which machinery is bringing into the world, and thereby entirely changing the structure of society. The modern paper-making machine, I am told, only employs two persons, where under the old system 100 men would have been needed. Thus scientific invention transforms the world. Men are dispensed with and work done in a mere fraction of the time formerly consumed. Will not this complicate in a very serious manner the problem of existence in the future?
Commenting upon the limited liability company law of 1898, the “ Law Journal” remarks that perhaps the most noticeable case of rhe year was “ In re Olympia.” It may be remembered that this was a case in which certain persons bought up cheap charges upon a property, and afterwards sold it to a company which they promoted, and one of the chief points was whether they were promoters at the time when they bought the charges and as such accountable to the company for the profit made by them. The Court of Appeal held that they were, but no new principle is involved in the decision, and, indeed, our contemporary considers that the past year was not memorable for any startling or epoch-making judgments. On the other hand, reference is naturally made to the “ eloquent allocution by the Lord Chief Justice to the Lord Mayor of London as keeper of the conscience of the commercial community,” and to the revelations attending Mr. Hooley’s public examination in bankruptcy.
There was a large attendance at a meeting held in Whitechapel this week, under the auspices of the Tenants’ Protection Association, to protest against the raising of rents in the districts of the East-end. The chairman, a Mr. Lewis, seems to have had the courage of his opinions, for he declared that “when it was found that a gang of robbers were rapidly appropriating all the house accommodation in Whitechapel, it became time to protest, and to iry and carry out some practical means of resistance. The evil was undoubtedly spreading. It was not true that it was confined to Whitechapel, nor was it a fact that the Jewish districts were alone affected. They found with horror that unscrupulous persons were buying houses all over London, and because they had some consideration for their own skin, they did not collect the rents themselves, but employed other persons to do the work.” After other speeches, a resolution was unanimously carried protesting against the “inhuman and brutal actions of the new extortionist landlords.” This is tall talking. Of course, when it is said that it is after all open to tenants to take or to leave premises which they consider too highly rented, the reply is made that circumstances— or want of circumstances—sometimes force them to remain in the localities alleged to be affected. But obviously the question is merely one of supply and demand. There is no magic in the relation of landlord and tenant. Who would expect a man to sell a horse for £30 when he could get £40 for it?
The Surveyors’ Institution.—The examination of candidates for admission to the class of Eellows and Professional Associates were held at■ the temporary offices, Savoy-street, W.C., this week.
increase in gross earnings was derived from passenger traffic, while of the increase in expenses £14,000 is accounted for by the enhanced cost of fuel arising mainly out of the South Wales Coal strike, and £17,500 to higher wages and salaries and shorter hours. A dividend of £4 2s. 6d. for the half-year (making 6§ per cent, for the whole year) is announced on the Undivided Ordinary Stock, while the Deferred Ordinary stock will receive £6 15s. as its share of the year’s profits. There will also be a payment of 7s. 6d. per cent, for the whole year to holders of Contingent Rights Certificates. A special sum of £20,000 is allocated to renewals of rolling stock, and there then remains a sum of£24,314 to be carried, forward.
* * *
There was a sensation in the Stock Exchange on Thursday when it was announced that a mistake had been made in the accountant's office of the South Eastern Railway Company, and that, as a result of a final audit, the directors were able to declare a dividend ^ per cent, in excess of the amount which they announced on Monday. The first announcement placed the dividend at per cent, per annum, with £8,000 forward ; the amended notice was to the effect that the distribution would be 6¿ (giving 3 per cent, to the Deferred holders), with £13,976 forward. The curious■ part of the business is that the price of the Deferred Stock had a jump of 2¿ per cent, on the day, prior to the publication of the amended notice, whereby it is clear that somebody must have got an early inkling of the position. The mistake is explained by the muddle which the company’s officials have got into over the changes in the staff and the routine through the working arrangement with the Chatham Company coming into force.
* * *
The Press Association is informed that, following on the recent great Bradford “ combine,” a strong movement is on foot for effecting a similar combination, of the calico printers of England and Scotland. It is estimated that the number of machines employed in this important home industry is about 900, and manufacturers representing 600 machines have, as a result of preliminary meetings already held in Manchester and Glasgow, under the auspices of the Calico Printers’ Association, expressed their willingness to join in such a combination as is proposed. It is roughly calculated that a capital of from nine to ten millions will be required to float the new concern.
* * *
The London Tramways Company, Limited, will hold its last meeting of shareholders on the 26th instant, when it will be proposed that the company be wound up voluntarily. The undertaking, it may be explained, has been purchased by the London County Council, and the shareholders are to he paid out.
Who shall decide when doctors disagree? It must be admitted to be rather funny to see Mr. W. Blake Odgers expressing in a very able lecture the hope that codification would soon come, and Mr. Justice Bigham, who was chairman at the lecture, saying that for his part he hoped it would not come yet. The learned Q.C., as it were, called on his Lordship to bless codification, and, behold, he altogether cursed it. Meanwhile, questions continue to arise which probably never would arise if the system generally favoured amongst other civilised nations were introduced into this country. Very commonly these questions concern mercantile men who, however, still appear to be ignorant or careless of the advantages of a code de commerce. Eor instance, following close upon the advertisement order stamping dispute to which I have previously alluded, another point as to the stamping of documents came before Mr. Commissioner Kerr in the City of London Court. The plaintiff was suing for commission in respect of orders obtained for the defendants for their goods, and one of the defences raised was that the document or commission note upon which the claim was based was not stamped.
The plaintiff’s counsel argued that a stamp was not required. He urged, first, that the document must be “necessarily” above the value of £5, which was not the case here, inasmuch as it did not follow that the plaintiff would have earned any commission whatever under the contract, and, secondly, that as the contract was made in Hamburg and no stamp would have been required there, it ought not to be required in this country. The learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the point as to stamping, and found for the plaintiff, adding that the defendants could appeal if they liked. They said that they should like, so we have probably not heard the last of the case. I should certainly have thought that a commission note or agreement was much more like a contract than an advertisement order. Every prudent agent in a
Citn ®üptrs.
[SPECIALLY CONTRIBUTED.]
Bank Rate 3J per cent, (changed Jan. 19, 1899).
The Bank rate was on Thursday lowered to 3¿ per cent., having stood at 4 per cent, since October 8. Some disappointment was expressed because the directors did not come down to 3 per cent., as the position fully justified such a reduction, and there were many precedents for a full drop of 1 per cent., despite what has been written in the daily press. Presumably a movement to 3 per cent, is only deferred to next week or the week after. Following the decline to 3¿ per cent., the joint stock banks have reduced their rate of interest for money on deposit to 2 per cent., but the discount houses, having made a change last Friday, have decided to make no further reduction at the moment.
* * *
The stock markets have received a fresh impetus from the reduction in the Bank rate. Buoyancy prevails in nearly every department, and there is every indication of a further expansion of business in the near future. American Railway Securities are quite rampant, and, because the upward movement continues, it is no reason to say that our remarks of the last few weeks, urging caution, have been quite wide of the mark, as those who have bought recently will have cause to know if they do not take advantage of the rise to clear out. We maintain that the market is a manipulated one, and, that in the rise which has taken place in prices, everything and anything which it is possible to happen in regard to American railways has been more than discounted. Our view is shared by some of the better class of firms in Wall-street, for we read in the New York telegram of the “ Financial Times ” of Thursday that, “ Conservative commission houses are now forcing their clients to realise, and thus trying to keep speculation within reasonable limits.”
* * *
The market for South African mining shares continues to broaden, and if the public are not “ in” the movement that is! their own fault. There is every justification for a higher level of values, so far, at least, as 50 per cent, of the shares are concerned, and there need be no hesitation because we limit ourselves to such a proportion, as the list is a large one, and there is plenty of scope for the speculative investor. It is a satisfaction to us to be able to record an improvement in the prices of nearly all the shares we mentioned a week ago as likely to be foremost in any upward movement. Thus, Rand Mines have risen to 36§, and are well on the way to £40, while East Rand have advanced to 7¿, and look like getting up to £10 without much effort. Rose Deep, too, are better, being quoted at 9j, and if Kodderfon-tein have not yet justified our good word, the rise in them is only delayed. We now hear that Yan Ryn shares are to be taken in hand and put up ; the present price is £3 10s., and £5 ■should, be reached before long.
* * *
Among the new issues of the week is a Rhodesian mining company. The moment for inviting subscriptions has been well chosen, because at the moment considerable attention is being given to the great developments which have taken place in Rhodesia. At the same time, the company possesses some good names. Yet we have no liking for the venture, and would prefer to put our money into something which can show some more substantial progress. A number of older established concerns appeal more to our pockets, the slight premiums at which their shares stand being well earned, and rendering the prices no dearer in comparison with the newer undertaking.
* * *
The investor is warned against certain “agencies” which purport to act as the guide and protector of shareholders in companies which have brought themselves into notoriety either by gross mismanagement or through sheer ill-luck. The gentlemen at the back of these “agencies” ate ■frequently “men of straw,” and sometimes worse, their sole object being to extract fees from the poor confiding shareholder, or blackmail from the officials of the company which they are so kindly watching pro hono publico. It not unfrequently happens that, having extracted fees from shareholders and promised to redress their grievances, they approach the directors of the concern in question and demand a still larger aggregate sum for putting the shareholders “ off the scent.” If the directors acquiesce, then the unfortunate shareholder is advised to let well alone, as nothing is to be gained by proceeding against the company.
* ' * *
The gross receipts of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company for the past half-year amounted to £1,595,542, being an increase of £71,994 over the corresponding period of last year, while the working expenses increased £38,711. The largest portion of the