April 15, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
612
of George III., indeed, a specimen or two may still be seen among the relics of the palace at Kew. Though his tables, sideboards and tea trays bore strong reminiscences of the designs of the brothers Adam, their excellence lay m the fact that the latter were only •suitable for their own particular setting, while Hepple-white’s could be placed amid any surroundings. His designs for the tops of dressing tables and card tables are beautiful examples of good taste, and in them the influence of Pergolesi, who worked with the brothers Adam, is perceptible. The inlaid tops for Pembroke tables are equally
charming. Other exquisite designs are his ornamental cornices for windows, decorated with arms and masks, his mirror frames, surmounted by eagles and urns ; and stuffed chairs hawing medallion backs in the style of Louis Seize.
We next come to the Louis Quinze fauteuils. One pair has a carved frame, ivory white enamelled, upholstered with needlework tapestry cover seat and back; and the other pair has■ a handsomely carved frame in high relief, ivory white enamelled, upholstered in old pearl silk brocade. One of these we illustrate.
As to the forms of furniture in the reign of Louis Quinze great license prevailed. Every object swelled to assume fantastic curves; the angles were hollowed or rounded, bombé and twisted shapes alone were permissible; the curled endive runs along the top; the borders were formed of brass gilded with ormolu ; and thus the whole was eccentric.
Many other articles of furniture of great beauty will be included in Messrs. Eiloart and Co.’s sale. A conspicuous item is׳ the magnificent grand piano made for George IV., to which we referred at length last week. There are also some exquisite oil paintings by Landseer, and other great artists. The catalogue of the sale, which ■comprises 516 lots, has been carefully prepared, and is an excellent production from a typographical point of view.
Central Chamber of Agriculture.—At the next meeting of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, on May 2, the fol-lowing important subjects will be considered : The Budget, so far as it affects agriculture ; reports of the beer materials committee ; Bating of Machinery Bill; and the licensing of retail vendors of foreign meat.
Boyal Agricultural College, Cirex-cester.—The spring session of this institution closed on Wednesday, when the Principal, the Bev. J. B. McClellan, M. A., conferred the diplomas, scholarships and other awards upon the successful students. He reported that the work of the term had been successful, and none of the candidates for the higher honours of the college had failed. He expressed satisfaction that the vacancy on the governing body had been filled by the appointment of Colonel Curtis Hayward, member of the council of the Boyal Agricultural Society, and a well-known authority on dairy farming. The external examiners for the diploma were : —In practical agriculture, Mr. •I. H. Allen, Somersetshire; in agricultural chemistry, Dr. J. A. Voelcker, M.A., London; and in veterinary science and practice, Pro■ fessor Sir George T. Brown, C.B., Harrow. Following are the chief awards of the class list: —Honour Diploma of Membership (maximum marks, 2,100, qualifying marks, 1,400) : Ed-ward Geoffrey Palmer, M.A., Burrough-on-the-Hill, Melton Mowbrav, 1,714 ; Sydney Dennis Arrowe Hall, Birkenhead, 1,689. Certificate of Proficiency in Practical Agriculture : Edwin Christopher Bankin, Brymvyn, Hereford. Scholarships, open to the whole college (quali-fving marks, 2,600). The first scholarship of £25 and the second and third scholarships of £10 each were divided equally between John Clark Bell, Auchtertype, Couper-Angus, Scot-land, 2,942 marks ; Araked Nubar, Paris and Cairo, 2,939; and James Foyster Bell, Gound-low, Tittenoor, Stoke-upon-Trent■, 2,928; honourable mention : Hutchings, 2,889 ; God-lonton, 2,885 ; Blaahw, 2,883 ; Tunstall, 2,660 ; Patten, 2,618; Fosberv, 2,540.
whether the alteration was made at the time of the order or afterwards. Whichever was the case, the alteration did not turn the pipe into a sewer. None of the oases cited showed that it would be so. The cases cited as showing that a deviation changed the character of the pipe were all cases in which an addition had been made to the group of houses drained. Here there was an order to drain a group of houses, and no addition had been made to that group.
AN INTERESTING SALE.
The highly important sale of antique furniture to be held by Messrs. Eiloart and Co., if Badnor-chambors, Folkestone, at the Old Manor House, Hythe, on the l8th and 19th inst., has already been referred to in these columns. Several of the items, however, are of exceptional interest and deserve more than passing notice.
The first article to attract attention is a Sheraton wardrobe of Spanish mahogany, with inlaid trellis satinwood fronts, as shown in the accompanying illustration. It is an extremely artistic and handsome piece of work.
Of Sheraton, whose reputation appears to increase with the lapse of time, it has been said
Lot llfi.
SHERATON WARDROBE.
Lot 192.
HEPPLE WHITE TABLE IN EBONY.
Louis Seize epoch.” There are several specimens of Sheraton’s work in this sale.
Another item deserving attention is a Hep-plewhite table in ebony, an illustration of which is here given. It has an octagon centre panel, carved in alto relievo, and incised corner and side panels, representing the four winds.
Hepplewhite’s own favourite model appears to have been the painted or japanned chair; this preponderates among his designs, and was the fashion during the early part of the reign
that he employed only the most expensive mahogany for veneers, his own favourite material being satinwood, often inlaid with purple wood, boxwood, and other light coloured woods. In his cabinets, writing tables and so forth, he wrought on Louis Seize lines, as shown by the square tapering legs, severe lines and quiet patterns in ornament.
“ It is,” says a recent writer on this subject, “ in the cabinets and writing tables that Sheraton exhibits the most decided advance beyond his predecessors, owing to his special excellence in ingenuity. The shapely cabinets, with candlesticks supported on their back legs, the writing tables with folding fronts running forward by means of slides, are among the most beautiful and ingenious pieces ever turned out; and in these the beauty of the woods employed rivalled that of the tasty minor pieces of the
| adjoining ׳house. The effect of the alteration was to get rid of a bend which the pipe would otherwise have made and so to give it a better flow. The fall, also, was increased, as, by its new course, the pipe entered the main sewer at a point lower down. There was׳ nothing on the register to show that this alteration׳ was sanctioned by the vestry. It was from the pipe of which the course was so changed that the nuisance complained of arose. The magistrate held that the pipe was a drain within section 250 of the Metropolitan Management Act, 1855, for which the appellant was responsible, and made the order. Section 250 provides :—“ The word drain ’ shall mean ׳and ׳include any drain of and used for the drainage of one building
only, etc............and shall also׳ include any
drain for draining any group or block of houses by a combined operation under the order of any vestry or district board ; and the word ‘ sewer ’ shall mean and include sewers and drains of every description except drains: to which the word drain, interpreted as aforesaid, applies.”
Mr. Packard, on behalf of the appellant, contended that׳ every pipe which carried off the drainage of more than one ■house was a de facto sewer, unless it formed part of a combined system of drainage sanctioned by the order of the vestry Here no “ order ” was made ; therefore t.he^ pipe in question was a sewer, and not a drain ■see “ Bethnal Green v. London School Board’ (1898, A.C., 190)—and if it were assumed that such order had been made, there was a deviation from the authorised plan which was not sanctioned by the vestry, ■and which, therefore, altered the׳ character of the pipe. See “Kershaw v. Taylor” (1895, 2 Q.B., 471), and “ Geen v. Vestry of St. Mary, Newington ’’ (1898, 2 Q.B., 1).
Mr. Avory, on behalf of the respondent, said that the cases cited only went to show (1) that there must be evidence of an order made by the vestry, ׳and (2) that a drain ceased to be a drain and became a sewer if the drainage of other houses was introduced into it. There was evidence of am order by the vestry, and that order was an order sanctioning a system of drainage, and not a particular line of pipes■• These could therefore be altered at will.
Mr. Justice Darling said that they were asked to decide whether the magistrate was right in holding that the pipe in question was a drain and not a sewer. The question ׳arose mainly under section 250 of the Metropolitan Management Act, 1855. That section provided that, beside ordinary drains, other things were to be included in the definition of “ drains ”— namely, pipes receiving the drainage of a group of houses under a combined operation sanctioned by the vestry. Here it was said by the respondent that the pipe was a drain! because it drained a group of houses by a combined operation under the order of the vestry. It did drain a group of houses. Was the system of drainage constructed under the order of the vestry 1 The plans ־were deposited and signed by the sur-veyor, but no formal order was made by the vestry. It was proved, however, that it was not the practice to ma׳ke an order, but to consider the signature of the surveyor as the order. It was only necessary to refer to “ Geen■ v. Vestry of St. Mary, Newington” to see that the drainage was, under the circumstances, constructed under the order of the vestry. It was said, however, that the operation was not carried out in accordance with the plan, and that the position of one of the pipes—the pipe in question—was altered. (But it further appeared that the pipe would have drained precisely the same number of houses in whichever position it was laid, and the cases cited to show that such an alteration operated to make the pipe a sewer and not a drain were not cases of a mere slight deviation, such as this w׳as, but were cases where the group of houses which drained into the pipe was interfered with so ■that more houses were made by the alteration to drain! into it than before. If here another house had been added to those already draining into the pipe, their Lordships’ decision might have been different. But here the only effect of the alteration was to improve the flow by straightening the course of the pipe and to increase the fall. The alteration in no way changed the character of the pipe, and the pipe in fact remained practically the same asl before. The alteration was made obviously for the sake of convenience. So long as the scheme was practically the same as that׳ laid down in the order, a deviation of a foot or two of one of the pipes did not matter. This pipe was a drain originally, and it remained so. The appeal must therefore be ■dismissed.
Mr. Justice Channel! said that by the definition in section 250 there was taken out of the term “ sewer ” not only ordinary drains, but also pipes which drained a group of houses by a combined operation effected under the order of the vestry. When׳ such an order was obtained the pipes became drains of the separate houses in which they were situated. There was just as much power in the owner of the whole group of houses, where they belonged to one owner, as there would be in each of the owners, where they were owned separately, to alter the course of the drains if it was convenient to him to do so. In this case it was not known
ligal $r0mitr!t0S.
HIGH COUBT OF JUSTICE.
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION.
April 11.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice of England and a Special Jury.)
ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISTRESS: GENERAL DISTRICT RATE.
MUTTON V. HORNSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL.
In this case, Mr. William Mutton, a journalist, residing in Whiteman-road, Hornsey, claimed damages against the defendant council for having put a wrongful distress into his ,house.
Mr. Harris, Q.C., and Mr. C. J. Peile were for the plaintiff; and Mr. H. C. Bichards, Q.C., and Mr. P. Low were for the defendants.
It appeared that the plaintiff had been a ratepayer in the Hornsey district for the past eight years. On May 24, 1898, a rate was made, and a sum of £2 lls. 8d. was demanded from the plaintiff. The demand, however, was not brought to his notice, and in August he left ■home for a tour in Ireland. No letters were forwarded to him, and he was absent six weeks. On returning home on September 29 he found an order for the payment of a sum of £2' 16s. 8d. for a general district rate. He at once sent a cheque for the amount to the collector. No receipt was sent, and he heard nothing more about the matter until October 11, when, going home in the evening, he found a distress had been put in for the rate he had already paid. The plaintiff at once wrote and complained to the collector, Who replied saying that he was sorry, but a mistake had been made, and the distress would be at once withdrawn. Beports of the matter had appeared in the local papers, and the plaintiff’s credit had been seriously affected.
In cross-examination, the plaintiff said he had no recollection that three demands for this rate were made of him before he went away to Ireland. What he complained of principally was the fact of a policeman in uniform and a bailiff being sent to his house. He admitted that on several occasions since 1893 summonses had been issued against him in respect of rates, but he was not aware that the summons out of which these proceedings arose was the eighth which had been served on him. The plaintiff’s wife stated that the policeman and the bailiff stayed in the house about five minutes. An inventory of some of the furniture was made, and on her signing a paper authorising the bailiff to re-enter the premises if necessary he did not remain in possession, but withdrew from the house. The facts were admitted by the defendants, and their collector said that the mistake arose owing to his having forgotten to strike out the plaintiff’s name from the list of defaulters. Demands for the rate were served on the plaintiff on May 24, June 28, and August 22. On August 29 a list of defaulters was made out; summonses against them were heard on September 12, and orders for payment were made. On September 30, the collector received a cheque from the plaintiff for the amount due, but he forgot to strike his name off the list of defaulters, or to send him a receipt. Consequently a distress warrant was issued against him, and the policeman and bailiff were sent to enforce ■it.
After hearing the evidence the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £50.
The defendants having paid £10 into Court, judgment was given for the plaintiff for £40 beyond that amount.
April 12.
(Before Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Channel!,).
SEWER OR DRAIN: ALTERATION OF PLAN.
THE OWNER OF NO. 238, OLD FORD-ROAD, V. FOOT.
This was a case stated by a metropolitan police magistrate. The appellant was summoned to abate a nuisance arising in connection with the drainage of his house. The nuisance was admitted, but the appellant contended in answer to the summon® that the pipe whence the nuisance arose was a sewer repairable by the vestry, and not■ a drain repairable by himself. It was proved that the register containing applications to the vestry by persons desirous of draining houses by a combined operation contained ■a. plan relating to the house in question and to other houses adjoining belonging ■to the same owner, and showing the proposed scheme of combined operation. The plan was signed by the surveyor, and dated June 27, 1879. The register contained no formal order of the vestry approving of the plan, but it was the practice to treat a plan so signed as being approved without drawing up a formal order. The plan showed a pipe, draining 11 houses, under the house adjoining No. 238. It was found that this pipe had in! fact been carried under the house No. 238 instead of under the