441
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
March 18, 1899.
verdict of tiro majority, which was for the defendant, and judgment was entered accordingly. If the action could be tried again it is very possible that the 12 would first disagree again, and then that the majority would find for the plaintiff. Such are the glorious and costly uncertainties of the law. Both “Richardson v. Read ” and “ Brand v. Spital ” show the advisability of agents taking clear and aptly drawn commission notes before entering into a ousi-ness, a precaution too often omitted for reasons which the agent probably thinks diplomatic at the time, and extremely foolish when a judgment, with costs, passes against him.
SATURDAY HALF-HOLIDAYS.
!'ROM THE CLERKS’ POINT OF VIEW.
To the Editor of the Estates gazette.
Sib,-—I was: very glad to read Mr. Trollope’s letter in your issue of January 7, in which he suggested the earlier closing of the offices of surveyors, auctioneers and others on Saturdays, and to see the correspondence which followed that letter; but I am sorry to find that bis suggestion has not met with a more generous response, and that the subject seems in s >me measure to have been dropped.
The very large number of assistants, whose interests are most vitally affected by this question I am sure feel deeply grateful, as I do, to Mr. Trollope for the suggestion he has so kindly made, and to those firms which have so promptly responded thereto; but, while being glad tha׳t such a suggestion has emanated, in the first place, from the head of a firm, I cannot but feel that if this matter is to' be brought to a successful issue it must be taken up by the assistants themselves, and in this way brought to the notice of the firms by whom they are employed.
For several reasons, it is clear that only by united action any good can be done, and I would therefore suggest that the assistants and pupils m each office should draw up and hand to their respective principals a courteous request■, w hich should be signed by every member of the staff of the office, that Mr. Trollooe’s suggestion should receive their consideration. Such request might, I think, take some such form as the following: —
To Messis. ------.
Gentlemen,
We the undersigned. 3°ur assistants and pupils, respectfully and courteously be״ to bting to your notice the suggestion which is contained in the following letter, which appeared in the Estates Gazette of January 7 last, in the hope that you will tive that suggestion >our consideration, and ultimately vour support33
“ To the Editor of the Estates Gazette.
“ Sir—May I crave a small space in your columns to enquire why wo no on spoiling our half-holida s by closing the office at two instead of at one o’clock. From a business point of view, this hour can be of but lit: 1© importance in our profession at any rate—while on the ׳>t.he״ hand, if added to the half-holidty it wou.d make all the difreience in the world, and enable us to eni >y a real half uays relaxation, instead ot the hurried, har-rassing scamper which !_ow exists in the large majority of instances.	3
I«״ is some time now since I took an active part in cricket, football, hockey, and similar games; but I • emember well the difficulty of getting men together
on time, and most of them weie suffering from the effecis of a bolted meal or no meal at all. To the army oi cyousts, pedestrians, golfltes, wet-bobs, sightseers, ana the like, he extra hour would be au inestimable boon, and surely no one will deny that it is of the highest importance to encourage out-uoor pursuits m everv way.	J
“Hoping that the new year may see the initiation of proper half-holiday8,
Yours, etc.,
HENRY C. TROLLOPE, F.SX”
We beg to assure you that your favourable decision in the matter would meet with a warm response on our part, and that we believe you would !׳ever have occasion to regret granting us the favour we now earnestly request.
We have the honour to remain,
Youis obediently,
[Here should follow the signatures.]
I would further suggest :that such requests should be handed in upon one and the same day, the date of which might be arranged later on, so that the movement may have a certain^ uniformity of time as well as of form, by which I believe its value would be considerably enhanced.
In the hope that my suggestions may be of some practical use, and thanking vou for the kind way in which you have given this matter space (whereupon I ׳fear I herein trespass too much) in your valuable paper, I beg to subscribe myself,
Tours faithfully,
A SURVEYOR’S ASSISTANT (P.A.S.I.).
London, March 15, 1899.
TO READERS.
The Manager will esteem it a favour if readers of the “ESTATES GAZETTE ” will kindly mention the name of the paper when communicating with any firm in regard to properties advertised or referred to therein.
decided in 1897, seems, indeed, to be dead in point. There the tenant had covenanted to “pay the land tax, sewers rate, and all other taxes, rates, duties, assessments and impositions, parliamentary, parochial or otherwise, which now are or shall at■ any time during this demise be assessed :or imposed on or in respect of the said demised premises.” The landlord was subsequently called on to abate a nuisance on the premises, and for that purpose to lay a new drain. This he did, and sued the tenant to recover the expenses, and it was held by Justices Wright and Bruce that the obligation to lay the new drain was a “ duty imposed in respect of the premises,” and that the tenant was liable to repay to the landlord ■the amount expended in complying with the requirements of the sanitary authority.
The drain (or sewer) question cropped up again in “Cree v. the St. Pancras Vestry,” a case of a good deal of interest to public authorities, inasmuch as the question involved was whether the action was barred by section 1 of the Public Authorities’ Protection Act, 1893, which requires the action to be commenced within six months after the act complained of where the act is done in pursuance of any Act of Parliament. The facts may be briefly put m this way: The Vestay had caused notices upon the plaintiffs’ testator to be served undei the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, requests ing •work to be done to abate an alleged nuisance, and specified the work required to be done in connection with a supposed drain. The plaintiffs’ testator complied ivith the notice and executed the works. In the course of the execution of the works it■ was discovered that the supposed drain was a sewer, and that the defendants were liable to do the repairs which the plaintiffs’ testator had been called upon to do, and the plaintiffs brought this action to recover !the expense of the works as money paid by the plaintiffs’ testator to the use and at the request of the defendants. The action, however, was not commenced within six months after the' completion of the work, and Mr. Justice Bruce held that it was barred. We have little ■doubt that his Lordship’s judgment was right upon the terms of the section! of the Act ■of 1893 relied on by the Vestry. At the same time, we do not wonder that he gave his decision “with reluctance.” “There must,” he remarked, “ be judgment for the defendants, and by the statute I am compelled to say with costs as between solicitor and client, although the defendants by their own default created a nuisance in their own district.” The learned Judge added that “ the case seemed a strange commentary on the rules laid down by modern statute law.” We think so, too.
ground rent at 35 years’ purchase, £31,325, from which they deducted £1,174 in respect of the reduced rent during the first seven years of the agreement, leaving £30,151. to which they added the usual 10 per cent, for compulsory sale, £3,015, making a total award of £33,166.
AWARD.
BUILDING LAND AT MARGATE.
The case of “ Hatfeild v. L.C. and D. Railway Company,” heard before Mr. W. H. Elwell, F.S.I., surveyor to the Great Northern Railway, sitting as Umpire at the Surveyors’ Institution, in December and January, was a claim by Mt. Charles Taddy Hatfeild, of Hartsdown, Margate, for compensation in respect of the acquisition of two pieces of land near Margate railway station for the purpose of an approach road. [Estates Gazette, December 24 and January 28.]
Mr. James Green, F.S.I. (Messrs. Weatherall and Green, 22, Chancery-lane, W.C.), was arbitrator for the claimant, whilst Mr. Robert Vigeis, P.S.I. (Messrs. Vigers and Co., 4, Frederick’s-Court, Old Jewry, E.C.), acted in a similar capacity on behalf of the railway company.
On behalf of the claimant, Mr. C. W. Willoughby, P.A.S.I. (Messrs. Weatherall and Green, 22, Chancery-lane, W.C.), gave a total valuation of £14,694; and Mr. G. Humphreys-Davies, F.S.I., 8, Lawrence Pountney-hill, E.C.. £14,335 19s. Mr. Albert Lathom, C.E., and Mr. John Reeve, auctioneer, both of Margate, also gave evidence. For the railway company, Mr. Samuel Walker, F.S.I. (Messrs. S. Walker and Son, 22, Moorgate-street, E.C.), had valued the two plots taken, which contain 3r. 16p., and 3r. 20p., at £2,562, to which he added the usual 10 per cent, and £500 for damage, making £3,318. His valuation on The basis of a plan, showing how the estate could be developed, amounted to £5,750 ; from which he deducted £3,035, his valuation of the remainder of the estate after the land acquired by the railway company had been taken off. Mr. H. M. Cobb, F.S.I., Higham, Kent, and 53, Lincoln’s-mn-fields, valued the land taken at £3,000 per acre, or £2,550. This, he said, should cover any damage done to the remainder of the property. His total figures were £3,303 Mr. Alfred Savill, F.S.I., 39, New Broad-street, E.C., adopted Mr. Walker’s figures.
The Umpire has awarded £7,400.
legal topics.
By a Barrister.
year, which he capitalised at 4¿ per cent., 22¿ years’ purchase, giving £2,250.
Mr. James F. Field, F.S.I. (of Field and Sons, 54, Borough High-street and Chancery-lane), said the premises were substantially in excellent order. There was a great demand for house property in the district, He thought £1 Is. was a fair estimate of the part of the premises used by the lessee. He believed there would be no difficulty now in getting a substantial tenant at £100 a year on repairing 1ease, which he dealt with at 20 years’ purchase. Witness added that he was engaged in making valuations for the new street from Holbom to the Strand.
Mr. Lewis Rendell, solicitor to the claimants, said £2,286 !had been spent on the property in rebuilding and purchase money.
Mrs. Penney, the lessee, said she offered to give £100 a year if her lease was renewed for 21 years.
FOB THE COUNTY COUNCIL.
Mr. Herbert Furber, F.S.I., said he found the premises let on an annual rental of £80 a year, which he dealt with on the 6 per cent, table, 16j years’ purchase, giving £1,328. By deducting £63 for land tax, lie made his total £1,265.
Mr. Edgar Harper, P.A.S.I., assistant valuer to the Council, took the value of the house at £80 a year and 17 years’ purchase, £1,360, and deducted £18 for repairs, ,making £1,342.
The Arbitrator reserved his award.
THE VALUE OF A GROUND RENT.
At the London Sheriff’s Court, Red Lion-square, on Tuesday, Mr. Under-Sheriff Bur-chell and a special jury heard the case of “ The Trustees of the' Bishopsgate Foundation v. the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police,” which was a claim for £54,893 compensation in respect to the value of a freehold ground rent secured upon a plot of land in City-road, adjacent to the Eagle Tavern, which had been acquired by the authorities for the erection thereon of a new police station.
Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Edward Boyle„ Q.C., and Mr. Ed. Morten and Mr. Pereival Clarke were counsel for the claimants ; Mr. C. A. Cripps, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Eldon Banlces for the Receiver of Police.
The area of the land taken was about 39,000 square feet, and it was let to Mr. Mark Brom-mitt, at an apportioned ground rent, fixed bj a magistrate under the Lands Clauses Act, of £895. The ground rent in question was alleged to be secured under a building agreement.
Evidence having been given by Mr. F. G. Fitch, clerk to ׳the Bishopsgate Foundation,
Alderman Samuel Green, F.S.I. (Messrs. Green and Son, 28 and 29, St. Swithin’s-lane, E.C.), gave evidence to the effect that he considered the ground rent in question exceedingly well secured. He estimated that on his figures he could sell it to a similar body at 2¿ per cent. The land was close to the City, and vast improvements were being carried on in the neighbourhood. His figures were:—•
£895 apportion d ground rent on rack rent of
£4.475—worth40years’purchase ..	..£35,800
10 per cent, compulsory sale ..	..	..	3,580
£39 380
Loss to the Trustees—
Reversion to, per annum £4,475 Less ..	..	..	895
-------- £3 580
On 2Jper cent table, worth 4 1-3 years' purchase=£’5 r 13
Sir J. Whittaker Ellis, Bart., F.S.I. (Messrs. Farebrother, Ellis and Co., 29, Fleet-street. E.C.), said he had never dealt with a more amply secured ground rent׳ than the one in question. He estimated the value at 40 years’ purchase.
Mr. Howard Chatfeild Clarke, F.S.I. (Messrs. Clarke and Son, 63, Bishopsgate-street Within, E.C.), who said he had had great experience in valuing vacant sites, agreed that the ground rent in question was worth 40 years’ purchase. He had no doubt that he could get more for it.
Mr. F. T. Galsworthy, F.S.I. (Messrs. Chin-nock, Galsworthy and Ohinnock, 11, Waterloo-place, S.W.), also adopted Alderman Green’s valuation. He considered the ground rent was perfectly secured at the present time.
FOE THE RECEIVES OF POLICE.
Mr. Cripps submitted that the value put upon the ground rent was ridiculous, when uhc reversion was considered. It was not secured by buildings, but by a covenant, and was worth only 28 years’ purchase.
Mr. A. L. Ryde, F.S.I. (Messrs. Ryde and Son, 29, Great George-street, S.W.), expressed the opinion that no provision in a building agreement could fully secure a ground rent. He considered the proper value was 27 years’ purchase, which, with a deduction for peppercorn, and the addition of the usual 10 per cent., worked out at £25,290.
Mr. William Eve, F.S.I. (Messrs. Eve and Son, 10, Union-court, Old Broad-street, E.C.), said it would be quite impossible to carry out the building agreement. The ground rent, in his opinion, was only worth 28 years’ purchase.
Mr. Henry Wood (Messrs. Beadel, Wood and Co., 97, Gresham-street, E.C.), and
Mr. James Green, F.S.I. (Messrs. Weatherall and Green, 22, Chancery-lane, W.C.), agreed.
In the result, the jury fixed the value of the
An interesting point, raised in “ Shepherd v. Wright” (Estates Gazette, March 11)—an action for illegal distraint—was whether, as the plaintiff’s counsel put it, “a landlord’s power of distraint did or did not as a matter of course pass to a liquidator.” It was contended in the case in the Birmingham Country Court that the defendant, as liquidator, had no power to put in a distraint without■ first obtaining leave of the Court, but his Honour Judge Toung decided against this view and gave judgment for the defendant. I!t may be useful to note the law on the subject as laid down in the last edition of “Woodfall” (p. 462). “Receivers appointed by the High Court,” it is there said, “have a power, where they consider it necessary, to distrain, and need not apply first to the Court for a particular order for that purpose, because, as the Court never makes an immediate order, but appoints a future day for a tenant to pay, it might be an injury to the estate to wait till that time, as it would give the tenant an opportunity to convey his goods off the premises in the meantime. If, however, there is any doubt who has the legal right to the rent, then the receiver should make an application to the Court for an order, as he must distrain in the name of the person who has that right; unless, indeed, the tenant has attorned to him and so created a tenancy as between them, in which case he should, of course, distrain in his own name.” (See also Daniels’s “Handbook of the Law of Distress,” p. 12, 3rd ed.)
In each of the two commission cases which we reported last week the question was one of liability—was the plaintiff suing the right party? In “Richardson v. Read” the defendants’ point was that not they but the “ Glyr. Trust ” should have been sued, a plea of which the jury marked their appreciation by finding for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, whilst the Judge declined to give leave to appeal or to grant a stay of execution. “ Brand v. Spital” was a more doubtful case, the dispute being whether Brand was entitled to the commission in respect of which the action was brought, or whether he had not agreed with a Mr. Winter, a solicitor, to share Winter’s procuration fee, and ought not therefore to lock to the latter and not to Mr. !Spital for remuneration. The jury at first were unable to agree, but the parties arranged to accept the
[The writer will answer any question relating to real property law, or to the practice of Agents. Auctioneers, and Surveyors, under “Queries and Replies.”]
Of recent years many have been the disputes between landlords and tenants over the question of construction which once more arose in “Farlow v. Stevenson,” reported in anothei column. The facts were that the plaintiffs had demised to the defendant by lease for seven, 14 or 21 years a' house at Clapham, “ the rent to be paid clear of all deductions except the property tax.” The defendant by the lease covenanted with the plaintiffs (amongst other things) to pay the rent, and also to “ pay and discharge all taxes, rates, duties and assessments whatsoever which now are, or hereafter may become, payable for or in respect of the said premises hereby demised, or any part thereof, whether parliamentary, parochial or otherwise (except the landlords’ property tax).” The covenant .to repair׳ in the lease extended to sewers and drains. Two or three years after the granting of the lease a notice was served by the Lambeth Yestry on the demised premises, addressed to the “ owner or occupier,’׳ and requiring the addressees to“ reconstruct the drain ” attached to the premises. After a certain amount of correspondence and negotiation between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the necessary works were carried out by the plaintiffs, who then took the present originating summons to have it determined whether on the true construction of the lease the plaintiffs or the defendant were liable for the cost of the work.
It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the expenses in question were covered bj the word “ duties,” and counsel on the other side was fain to admit that tenants had never yet in any reported decision escaped liability when the covenant had contained that word. He tried, however, to draw a somewhat fine distinction between the present case and those which had preceded it. In this attempt he was unsuccessful, and Mr. Justice Byrne held that the case was indistinguishable in substance from “ Sweet v. Seager,” “ Thompson v. Lap-worth,” and “Brett v. Rogers,” and that the tenant was, by his covenant, bound to pay for ׳the cost of the drain referred to in the- notices by the Yestry. “Brett v. Rogers,” which was