Jantjaby 21, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE,
102
ITS SCIENCE ANC PRACTICE.
CONDUCTED BY
CHARLES E. CURTIS, F.S.I.,
Professor of Forest Economy, Field Engineering, and General Estate Management at the College of Agriculture, Downton. etc etc.
Contributions to this column are invited from Dractitioners, students and others, who may he m a position to enlighten their fellows upon any branch of the important subject of Forestry, or who seek information and help in regard to doubts and difficulties.
All matter must be written clearly upon one side of the paper only, and in the case of questions or replies, each must be written on a separate sheet.
Every contribution of whatever character must be accompanied by the name and address of the sender ; and correspondents are requested to ad dress the same toithe Editor of the ESTATES Gazette with “ Forestry ” endorsed upon the envelope.
All specimens of timber, twigs, fungi, entomological specimens, Ac., must be sent with care, and when necessary enclosed in a box or other receptacle. All such specimens must have attached or enclosed the name and address of the sender, and any question or remark in regard thereto plainly and legibly stated.
Every endeavour will be made to reply to all questions promptly, but we cannot guarantee that such replies shall appear the same week ! s the questions are received.
THE GALE.
In cases where large trees have been recently planted, especially trees carrying heavy heads, such as Austrian pine and other coni-ferre, it will be advisable when the wind abates to tread them newly in and to restake. It is in such contingencies as this that we find the benefit of planting small trees on exposed sites. Small trees notched in turf will suffer less than under any other conditions.
INSPECTION OF ESTATES.
When inspecting estates with a view to advise upon planting, the following points are important: —Study carefully the site, aspect, and altitude, with the slopes; and take with reasonable exactitude the bearings of the sites which it is intended to plant. Pay attention to the necessity of shelter, and plant so as to secure this; study the land which abuts on the estate, and note its position with regard to game preservation ; for if the neighbour preserves there is no reason wThy you should plant to feed his covers. It is usually best under such conditions as this to recommend planting inside the estate and not upon the margin. Try to provide cover so as to draw pheasants towards your centre rather than entice them to wander off to outside covers.
The soil, too, must be closely studied, especially in relation to the surface, as upon this will depend not only the trees which you will select, but the cost of digging the holes and planting.
The maps to which I drew attention last week will be found invaluable when visiting a country to which the expert is a stranger. He should be careful to see that the estate is coloured on the map, and then, without any assistance, he will be able to help himself without seeking the aid of a rustic. In out of the way estates, miles from a town or railway, it is often difficult to find anyone sufficiently intelli gent to give that information which is essential in the forming of a reliable report. The Ordnance map tells its own tale, and the experienced man will soon feel that he has lived in the district for months.
Measurements of area, fencing, and all detail can be found in a few minutes without the need to drag up chain, theodolite, level, staff, and other heavy impedimenta.
SHAKES IN TIMBEE.
A timber merchant writes to me :—“ ‘ Shake ’ I find most prevalent in elm and oak. I have never found cases in sycamore, beech, alder or soft woods by which the timber was rendered useless, though those woods may be occasionally 1 split.’ ”
QUERIES AND REPLIES.
Do you recommend beech as a hedge plant? If so, at what size should I plant?—C.E.
[675]
Yes, beech makes an excellent hedge if cared for. It is useful in exposed positions as it retains the dead leaf through the winter, and thus forms shelter; but it is surpassed for this purpose by the Hornbeam (carpinus betulus), which is stronger and bears the knife better. The size of plants will depend on soil and site, but from l2in. to 18in. will be found useful. The cost of such plants will range from 20s. to 25s. per 1,000.
Please give me the names of the enclosed twigs.—STUDENT.	[674]
(1) Hornbeam ; (2) Whitebeam ; (3) Austrian Pine ; (4) Weymouth Pine, and (o) Corsican Pine.
arranged. He thought also that the defendant, j Mr. Burry, was willing that a smaller deposit . of £500 should be paid, and that the contract should be signed, but he looked in vain in the evidence for authority to conclude the contract. He had come to the conclusion that there never was authority to conclude the contract. Even if he were wrong in this view, it was beyond all possibility of doubt that no authority was given to include a specific contract purporting to be entered into. Assuming that Messrs. Hamp-son were entitled to sign the contract containing those terms only, which had been mentioned as the grounds upon which Mr. Burry would be willing to accept a purchaser, he did not think that would justify the entering into a contract with the clauses which this contract contained. In the result his Lordship dismissed the action with costs.
EAKENHAM COUNTY COURT.
January 11.
(Before His Honour Judge Willis, Q.C.) LANDLOED AND TENANT: AGEEEMENT TO PUT IN BEPAIE.
GOGGS V. PBIOR.
This was an action brought by Thomas Richard Goggs, of Eakenham, merchant, against Herbert Prior, of Whissonsett, baker, to recover the sum of £5 12s. 6d., being three quarters’ rent of house, bake-office and premises at Whissonsett up to October 11 last.
The defendant counterclaimed against the plaintiff for £15 5s., for loss sustained by him by reason of the plaintiff not fulfilling his agreement to repair and put into a habitable condition the house and bake-office.
Mr. E. Andrews (Cates, Butcher and Andrews, Fakenham) appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. D. Jackson, King’s Lynn, for the defendant.
Mr. Jackson admitted the plaintiff’s claim, and his Honour said there would be judgment for the plaintiff for £5 12s. 6d., with costs.
The defendant was then called, and stated he occupied up to April, 1898, premises at Whissonsett, belonging to Mr. Rix. In October, 1897, he saw the plaintiff, and knowing he had a bake-office and premises at Whissonsett to let, asked him if he would let it to him. It had then been empty some three years. The plaintiff stated he had formerly let it for £9 a year., but he (defendant) should have it for £7 10s., and pay taxes. He agreed to accept it provided plaintiff put it into good repair. Plaintiff said he would do so, and would see Mr. Drew, of Horningtoft, and have the repairs done at once. He was to pay the rent quarterly, and give a year’s notice in case he would like to leave. Defendant shortly after received the key of the premises, and went and looked over it, and found it so very much out of repair, that he took the key back, and refused to have anything to do with it. Plaintiff refused to take the key, and told defendant he had hired the premises and should hold him responsible for the rent. He (defendant) kept the key, but had never been in possession on account of the dilapidated state of the house. He had to hire another place at £15 per annum. Notwithstanding he never hired the premises nor took possession, he had paid one quarter’s rent on being pressed to do so by the plaintiffs agent. The place was still unoccupied.
The defendant, at the request of his Honour, described the house when he looked over it as having the windows knocked out by stones which were lying in the house, a stove was out upstairs, the doors wanted locks on, and a few tiles were off the roof.
His Honour remarked he could not hold the premises were untenable when about £2 would have put the place in order, and which the defendant should have got done, and charged Mr. Goggs with. He could not think what defendant had been doing to allow the matter to go on so long without consulting a solicitor on the matter. He thought, however, the plaintiff had not done what he promised to do, and should do something for defendant.
Mr. Andrews admitted the plaintiff had promised to put in a few panes of glass, but nothing else. This, however, he had not done, but was willing to allow defendant for same.
His Honour remarked that defendant having admitted his tenancy by paying a quarter’s rent, he did not see how lie could sustain his counterclaim, as the place was not what he should consider uninhabitable.
Mr. Jackson pressed that his client should be released from his tenancy from Michaelmas last, instead of on April 6 next, when the notice to quit given by defendant expired.
Mr. Andrews, having consulted with the plaintiff, consented to release defendant from October 11.
His Honour then gave judgment for the nlain-tiff on his claim for £5 12s. 6d., with costs, and on the counterclaim without costs.
Mb. William Dancey, of Gloucester, reports the sale of the Bristol-road Pharmacy through his agency, at £412 10s.
I Lordship, in respect of the case of “ Galloway ' v. the Corporation of London,” in the House of Lords, much relied upon by the defendants as covering this, observed that he had the greatest respect for the decision in that case, but it did not touch the present case. He pointed out, among other differences, that one of the Acts giving powers to the Corporation of London enabled them to borrow on the security of land acquired by them for the purposes of the Acts, which related to Smithfield Market improvements. As the parties had agreed to treat the appeal as the trial, the injunction would be made perpetual, and costs of the action, including costs of appeal, given to the plaintiff.
Lord Justice Rigby delivered judgment to the same effect, and
Lord Justice Yaughan Williams concurred.
CHANCERY DIVISION.
January 18.
(Before Mr. Justice Bybne).
CHANDEBOIS V. BURBY.
This was an action to enforce an agreement for the sale to the plaintiff of the Gray’s Inn Larder, Warwick-eourt, Holborn, with the goodwill of the licensed victualler’s trade there carried on, for £28,000.
Mr. Astbury, Q.C., and Mr. Ward Coleridge for the plaintiff, stated that the defendant, as proprietor of the house, had instructed Messrs. Hampson and Co., auctioneers and valuers, 4 and 5, Warwick-court, Gray’s-inn, to obtain a purchaser for it. They negotiated with the plaintiff, and in the result an agreement was made on November 25, 1897, for a sale to him for the sum mentioned ; £25,000 to remain on mortgage. Possession was to be given on January 6, 1898.
Mr. Eve, Q.C., and Mr. Ford, for the defendant, denied that any contract as alleged had 'been entered into with his authority.
On behalf of the plaintiff evidence was given to the effect that arrangements were made for the sale of the house in question to a customer of Messrs. Hampson’s (the plaintiff) for £28,000, £25,000 to remain on first mortgage at 4¿ per cent., that that was the plaintiff’s own arrangement, and that he agreed to pay the agents £600 commission.
Mr. A. J. Child, of Hampson and Co., deposed that at the interviews between the parties, which had been followed by correspondence, the defendant had authorised the sale on the terms mentioned. No time was fixed for the £25,000 mortgage, which Mr. Burry agreed to.
The manager for Mr. Hampson stated that he was present at the interviews in question when the defendant was asked if £500 could he paid on deposit, as the purchaser would not put down £1,000, the defendant saying, “It is a little bit small, but all right.” The defendant was cognisant of all particulars of the sale. He afterwards said he had an offer of £32,000 for the house, hut witness told him it was “ too late to talk about that,” and the defendant certainly did not at that time assert that he had given no authority to Messrs. Hampson to sell, nor did he in any way repudiate the contract.
Mr. Burry, the defendant, was called, and denied giving authority for the acceptance by Messrs. Hampson of a contract for sale at £28,000. ,In fact, he had no interviews with Mr. Hampson at all, and his first knowledge of the contract was when Hampson and Co. sent it on to him.
Mr. Robert Wilson, solicitor, Bedford-row, stated that an agreement signed by somebody was sent to him for approval on behalf of the defendant. It contained a covenant not to carry on a licensed victualler’s business, after the sale, within a mile, except at Prosser’s, Holborn, another of the defendant’s houses. The defendant expressed himself willing to carry out the sale, but not on the terms of the contract prepared. Nothing was said at the interview mentioned about £25,000 remaining at 4¿ per cent. If that had been a condition, enough would not have been forthcoming to pay off an existing mortgage of about £14,000.
Mr Justice Byrne, in giving judgment, said he was of opinion that the plaintiffs were neither the agents of the defendant for concluding any contract, still less for the particular contract in question. He considered that the auctioneers and estate agents, Messrs. Hampson and Co., were the agents of the defendant, Mr. Burry, for the purpose of endeavouring to find a purchaser for certain premises ; for that in certain events they were to receive commission. The letter of February 9, 1897, was such a letter as he should expect to be written by a man who considered he was authorised in the ordinary way to endeavour to find a purchaser. The expression of “ putting a property in the hands of an estate agent for letting or selling” was well known. The ordinary province of an estate agent was not to conclude a contract for his principal ; his province was to obtain an offer acceptable to his principal, and then put the two parties into communication. The terms of the commission were varied after the date of the letter of February 9, and £600 was finally
legal JtoeeMitgs.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
COURT OF APPEAL.
January 11.
(Before the Masteb or the Rolls and Lords
Justices Rigby and Vaughan Williams.) EIGHT TO TAKE LAND AND EESELL: PEIVATE ACT: COBPOBATION.
DONALDSON V. THE COBPOBATION OP SOUTH SHIELDS.
This was an appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice North. The plaintiff applied by motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant corporation from further proceeding to take under their compulsory powers property abutting upon the intended frontage of a street which the corporation were widening under their Act of 1896, which empowers them to make several improvements, including the widening of a number of streets and the construction of a new street. The practical question between the parties was whether the corporation were entitled to take, in addition to the land actually required for widening a street, land adjoining and to resell it at a profit, and thus to recoup themselves part of the expense of carrying out the authorised street works. The corporation had given notice to the plaintiff to take premises belonging to her which were delineated in the Parliamentary plans, and described in the book of reference wnich had been deposited, in accordance with standing orders, previously to bringing in the Bill which subsequently ripened into the Act of 1896. The property in question abutted on the line of frontage of Fowler-street, as intended to be widened under the powers of the Act, but was in part outside the limits of deviation allowed for the widening of the street itself. The 41st section of the Act of 1896 provides : —“ The corporation may enter upon, take, and use all or any part of the lands following shown on the deposited plans and described in the deposited book, of reference ■—■that is to say, (1) for the purpose of street works the lands shown on the deposited plans in connection therewith and which they may require for the purposes thereof respectively.” On behalf of the corporation it was contended that the case of “ Galloway v. the Corporation of London” (Law Rep., 1 H.L., 34) applied, and that under the words of section 41 the defendant corporation were authorised to take land outside the limits of deviation allowed for the actual widening of the street itself. Mr. Justice North held, upon the construction of section 41, that the corporation were not entitled to take land outside the limits of deviation or any land not required for the actual widened street. The corporation appealed.
It was agreed to treat the appeal as if it had been brought from a perpetual injunction granted at the trial of the action.
Mr. Cripps, Q.C., and Mr. O. Leigh Clare were for the corporation; Mr. Rawlins, Q.O., and Mr. Waggett were for the plaintiff.
The Master of the Rolls said in this case he did not think it necessary to take further time before giving judgment, though it was a very important one for the corporation. The decision turned on a very few words of an Act of Parliament. He had read with attention the sections of the Act which were material, and the conclusion at which he had arrived was that the language and form of the Act did not allow him to put the construction on it which Mr. Cripps and Mr. Clare had in their very able argument contended for. The Act was a very long one, divided into no less than 18 parts. The parts material were the preliminary part; part 3, entitled “Street Works”; part 6, entitled “Lands”; and part 17, entitled “Financial Provisions.” The point their Lordships had to decide was simply whether the corporation had, under the Act before them, power to take land admittedly not required for the construction of a street, or what he might call engineering works, but simply for the purpose of reselling at a profit or otherwise dealing with it so as to reduce the cost of widening a street. His Lordship alluded to the sections at length, and proceeded: Whether the corporation could for any purpose take any land outside the limits of deviation, it was not necessary to decide. He was not satisfied that they could not take land shown on the deposited plans outside the limit of deviation for purposes he could suggest, such as to make an approach—engineering purposes he might call them. Those were not the purposes for which the plaintiff’s property was required. He could not see how the language of section 21 could be construed into meaning that land could be taken for a financial purpose, or that any inference to a similar effect could be drawn from the Act. His Lordship then dealt with the arguments that such inference was to be gathered from sections which enabled the corporation to keep and deal with or sell surplus lands and apply the proceeds of a sale in discharge of money borrowed under the Act. He pointed out that these sections were proper in respect of surplus lands forced upon the corporation as property part of which only was required and land acquired by agreement. His