صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

recovered by action only; (b) that it can only be recovered in the case of tenancies of specified kinds; (c) that the notice upon which the action is founded must be in writing; (d) that the holding over must be "wilful;" (e) that the damages recoverable are to a certain extent discretionary. To which may be added (f) that the existence of the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties to the action as a continuing relation is not necessary. A few observations are appended upon each of these points in their order.

(a) The statute itself providing an "action of debt " as the means of recovering double value, it has been judicially pointed out that no distress for it, as in the case of double rent, can be levied (Timmins v. Rowlinson, 1765, 3 Burr. 1603). The statute, as will have been seen, in terms describes double value as a penalty. Hence the action (under 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42, s. 3) must be brought within two years, and discovery therein, whether of documents or by interrogatories, will not, in compliance with established rule, be permitted to the plaintiff.

(b) Unlike the double rent statute, which, as has been seen, applies to " any tenant or tenants," the double value statute applies only to a "term of life, lives, or years." This seems to cover a tenancy from year to year (Lake v. Smith, 1805, 1 N. R. 174; Ryal v. Rich, 1808, 10 East, 48), but not one from week to week (Lloyd v. Rosbee, 1810, 2 Camp. 453; 11 R. R. 764), or (probably) from quarter to quarter (see Wilkinson v. Hall, 1837, 3 Bing. N. C. 508; 43 R. R. 728). A case is to be found in the books where a tenancy for a single year was treated, apparently without argument, as being within the enactment (Cobb v. Stokes, 1807, 8 East, 358; 9 R. R. 464).

(c) Like the double rent statute, the double value statute requires that in those cases where notice to quit is necessary the first step for recovery of the penalty should be a notice which by law is valid and binding upon both parties (Page v. More, 1850, 15 Q. B. 684; 81 R. R. 749). But whereas a parol notice is sufficient in the former case, the Statute 4 Geo. II. requires a "demand made and notice in writing given," though it has been held that no demand other than that contained in the notice is necessary (Wilkinson v. Colley, 1771, 5 Burr. 2694). In yearly tenancies the ordinary form of notice to quit on a given day, "or on such other day as your tenancy shall expire next after the expiration of half a year from the receipt of this notice," is sufficient (Hirst v. Horn, 1840, 6 Mee. & W. 393; 55 R. R. 672). In tenancies for a fixed term, where no notice to quit is required at all, a written notice, described as a notice to quit, will satisfy the requirements of the statute (Messenger v. Armstrong, 1785, 1 T. R. 53; 1 R. R. 148). Nor need it necessarily be given before the end of the term, so long as the landlord has not been party to any act after its determination involving a recognition of the tenancy (Cobb v. Stokes, 1807, 8 East, 358; 9 R. R. 464).

(d) While the double rent statute is silent as to the kind of holding over on the part of the tenant necessary to bring it into play, the double value statute in terms restricts it to one which is "wilful;" and this has been interpreted to mean a holding over with knowledge of its wrongfulness (Swinfen v. Bacon, 1861, 6 H. & N. 846), as distinguished from one in the exercise of a fair (Hirst v. Horn, supra) claim of right (Wright v. Smith, 1805, 5 Esp. 203). Where, for instance, the holding over is by an under-tenant, the tenant cannot be made liable under the statute without proof of its having been authorised by him (Rands v. Clark, 1870, 19 W. R. 48).

(e) Both double rent and double value are payable only during the actual time of the holding over. But while the penalty in the former case is by its very nature a specific sum, that in the latter is merely payment "at the rate of double the yearly value" of the premises held over. This is not necessarily double the rent the tenant has been paying, though it is perhaps generally estimated on that footing; but it is the sum which an occupier would give, and which the landlord, but for the holding over, would have received, for the use of the freehold and everything connected with it during the time the possession has been withheld (Robinson v. Learoyd, 1840, 7 Mee. & W. 48; 56 R. R. 610). And as the double value given by the statute is that of the "lands, tenements, and hereditaments" held over, the value of anything not in the nature of real property which may be demised with the premises (e.g. steam power in a mill), is not to be taken into account (s. c.).

(f) Unlike the double rent statute, which contemplates the continuance of the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties, the double value statute allows of the action being brought against a person whom the landlord has decided to treat as a trespasser, and against whom he has brought ejectment (Soulsby v. Neving, 1808, 9 East, 310; 9 R. R. 567). The present practice indeed provides that a claim for double value may be joined with a claim for the recovery of land without the leave of the Court, which is in general required in such cases to be obtained (R. S. C., 1883, O. 18, r. 2).

The action of double value may be brought by a mortgagee (Poole v. Warren, 1838, 8 Ad. & E. 582), as owner of the reversion within the statute. But it cannot be brought by a person to whom a new lease has been granted to commence at the expiration of the tenancy held over (Blatchford v. Cole, 1858, 5 C. B. N. S. 514). One tenant in common may bring the action in respect of his share (Cutting v. Derby, 1776, 2 Black. W. 1075). The action can, if the sum claimed do not exceed £100, be brought in the County Court (see Wickham v. Lee, 1848, 12 Q. B. 521; 76 R. R. 334).

Where the landlord accepts the ordinary rent after this right to double value has accrued, it is a question of fact whether he intended to waive such right or only to receive the money in part satisfaction of the larger claim (Ryal v. Rich, 1808, 10 East, 48).

Dower. See HUSBAND AND WIFE. Dower, curtesy, and the like estates are treated as "property settled by will" for purposes of estate duty (Finance Act, 1894, s. 22 (3)).

Drainage.-Arterial Land Drainage.-The present statutory regulations for providing arterial drainage for agricultural lands date from 1531, when the statute known as the Bill of Sewers, 23 Hen. VIII. c. 5, was passed. This Act has been amended in 1708, 7 Anne, c. 10; in 1833, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 22; in 1841, 4 & 5 Vict. c. 45; in 1849, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 50; and, finally, in 1861, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 133. Besides these general Acts, a very large number of local Acts give special powers applicable to different districts. The Acts are complicated, and the powers given are not always sufficient to secure their object of preventing floods and ridding land of superfluous moisture. But though further legislation has been recommended, and bills for the purpose have been introduced into Parliament, notably in 1881 and 1883 and 1897, they have not become law.

[ocr errors]

Commissioners of Sewers.-Under the earlier Acts, commissions of sewers may be appointed by the Crown from time to time within defined limits "to survey the walls, streams, ditches, banks, gutters, sewers, gates, calcies, bridges, trenches, mills, mill-dams, flood-gates, ponds, lochs, bebbing-wears and other impediments, lets, and annoyances to the flow of water,' and the same cause to be made, corrected, repaired, amended, and put down as the case shall require" (Act of 1531, s. 2). This jurisdiction was by sec. 10 of the Act of 1833 declared to extend over all walls, banks, culverts, and other defences whatsoever situate or being by the coasts of the sea, and all navigable rivers, streams, sewers, and water-courses which now are, or hereafter shall or may be, navigable, or in which the tide may ebb or flow, or which directly or indirectly communicate with any such navigable or tide river, stream, or sewer, and all walls, banks, culverts, bridges, dams, flood-gates, and other works erected or to be erected in, upon, over, or adjoining to any such rivers, streams, or water-courses;" but the Commissioners are not to interfere with ornamental works constructed near a dwelling-house, unless they first obtain the written consent of the owner or proprietor. By sec. 16 of the Act of 1861 it is provided that the powers of Commissioners acting within their jurisdiction shall extend (1) to maintenance of existing works; (2) to improvement of existing works; and (3) to construction of certain new works, i.e. "making any new water-course or new outfall for water, or erecting any new defence against water, erecting any machinery, or doing any other act required for the drainage, necessary supply of water for cattle, warping or irrigation of the area comprised within their limits.

Under the original Act the Commissioners had no power to execute new works (Isle of Ely Case, 1637, 10 Co. Rep. 141). They were first empowered to execute any such works by the Act of 1833, but the power so granted was practically worthless, inasmuch as it could only be exercised when the Commissioners had obtained the written consent of the owners of three-fourths at least of the lands proposed to be charged with the costs of making such works (s. 21). The general power given by the Act of 1861 to make new works is not subject to any restriction unless the works are costly. If the cost of improvements or new works is to exceed £1000, notices must be published describing the nature of the work, the amount of expense to be incurred, and the area within which a rate is to be levied for meeting the expense (s. 29); and, thereupon, if within two months the proprietors of half the area signify in writing their dissent, the work may not proceed. If they do not do so, their acquiescence is presumed, and the works may be carried out (s. 31).

In order to carry out their duties effectively, the Commissioners sometimes require to purchase the land. They are empowered to do so for the maintenance of existing works by the Act of 1833, ss. 24-38. If land is wanted for new works it must be taken under the Act of 1861, by sec. 21 of which the Board of Agriculture can now issue provisional orders empowering them to take lands compulsorily. Funds to defray ordinary expenses are raised by means of rates, which Courts of Sewers are empowered to impose from time to time, from lands, tenements, and hereditaments within their jurisdiction, so that such lands, etc., shall contribute thereto in proportion to the benefit received, or capable of being received, from the Court (Act of 1841, s. 1). In case of improvements involving an expenditure of over £1000 on new works, the money

is to be raised by a special rate, which is to be deemed to be a tax on the owners of property (Act of 1861, s. 38). The Courts may also borrow money, under sec. 41 of the Act of 1833, on the security of the lands benefited, or on the security of the general sewers rate under sec. 4 of the Act of 1841 and sec. 40 of the Act of 1861.

Prior to 1861 the Court must be put in motion by the presentment of a jury-in the nature of a grand jury who were sworn to inquire (a) into any obstruction or want of repair; (b) by whose default they were occasioned; and (c) who was liable (Act of 1531, s. 3; Act of 1833, s. 11). If a jury has once presented that any person is liable to repair any particular work, no further presentment against him is necessary during the continuance of the Commission; but the Commissioners may from time to time order him to maintain or repair it (s. 13). The Act of 1861 (s. 33) enables Commissioners of Sewers without any previous presentment of a jury to make any order in respect of the execution of any work, etc., subject to the right of any person aggrieved to appeal to Quarter Sessions; which Court may confirm, annul, or modify the order (s. 47), or may refer the matter to the arbitration of one or more persons to be appointed by the parties, or in case of their disagreement by the Court (s. 48). Many commissions still act solely on the presentment of a jury, and in some cases, where their powers are derived under a local Act, it may be doubtful whether the general Act of 1861 applies.

Commissions were originally issued for a term of three years, at the end of which time they lapsed unless renewed, subsequently the term was extended to ten years, and now they continue until superseded (Act of 1861, s. 14). Since that Act new commissions are only issued or the powers or areas of existing commissions altered, after inquiry by and on the recommendation of the Inclosure Commissioners (now Board of Agriculture). The Court is a Court of record (Duke of Newcastle v. Clark, 1818, 8 Taun. 602; 20 R. R. 583).

Drainage Boards.-Instead of Commissioners of Sewers, nominated by the Crown, all the powers of such Commissioners may be vested in an elective drainage Board, having jurisdiction over a separate drainage district. Such Boards may be formed by the Board of Agriculture by provisional order, on the petition of not less than one-tenth in acreage of the proprietors of any area that requires a combined system of drainage, warping, or irrigation. Unless the provisional order otherwise directs, the electors are to be the persons paying the sewers rate, and to have votes according to the amount at which they are rated. The members hold office for a year, and are eligible for re-election (Act of 1861, ss. 66-71). The Act, by Schedule II., regulates the procedure of these Boards. They may delegate any of their powers to committees, consisting of such member or members as they think fit (s. 46), but a committee cannot delegate its powers (Cook v. Ward, 1876, 2 C. P. D. 255).

See Kennedy and Sanders on Drains and Sewers.

Drainage by Private Owners.-Many Acts deal with the drainage of land by individual owners and tenants. The Land Drainage Act, 1861, empowers any person interested in land who desires to drain the same to obtain the consent of another owner to the opening of new drains, or the cleansing, widening, straightening, or improvement of existing drains through or on the lands of such owner on such terms and on payment of such compensation as he may require (ss. 72-75). If within

one month after the application such owner fail to express his assent, two justices or an arbitrator are to decide (1) whether the proposed drains or improvements will cause any injury to such owner or to the occupier or other person interested in the lands; and (2) whether any injury may be compensated in money. If the decision is that irreparable injury will be caused, the works may not be made, but otherwise the applicant is entitled to make them, in spite of the owner's dissent (s. 76). When drains have been opened or improvements made, the applicant, his heirs and assigns, are empowered for ever thereafter to clear out, scour, and maintain them in a proper state of efficiency (s. 79).

By the Public Money Drainage Acts, 1846-1856, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 101; 10 & 11 Vict. c. 11; 11 & 12 Vict. c. 119; 13 & 14 Vict. c. 31; and 19 & 20 Vict. c. 9, the Treasury were empowered to advance public money to owners of land for the purpose of improving it by works of drainage. In 1849 an Act, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 100, was passed to promote the advance of private money for drainage of lands. This latter Act was repealed in 1864, and its provisions re-enacted in the larger Improvement of Land Act of that year, 27 & 28 Vict. c. 114. Among the improvements of land contemplated by that Act are-(1) drainage and the straightening, widening, deepening, or otherwise improving the drains, streams, and water-courses of any land; (2) the irrigation and warping of land; (3) the embanking and weiring of land from the sea or tidal waters, or from lakes, rivers, or streams, in a permanent manner (s. 9). Any landowner or owners-may apply to the Inclosure Commissioners (now Board of Agriculture) for their sanction for proposed improvements (ss. 11, 12). If they find that the proposed improvements will effect a permanent improvement in the value of the lands exceeding the yearly amount to be charged thereon, they are to give their sanction (s. 25) by provisional order (s. 27). Such order is full authority to the landowner and those employed by him to enter on the land and carry out all the improvements sanctioned by the order (s. 34). The expenses may be made a charge on the inheritance (ss. 49 et seq.).

By the Settled Land Act, 1882, 45 & 46 Vict. c. 38, s. 30, the enumeration of improvements in sec. 9 of the Act of 1864 is extended so as to comprise all improvements authorised by the later Act. Drainage in all forms is among the improvements so authorised (see s. 25). Capital money in settlement may therefore be expended on such works (s. 21 (119)); and if a certificate from the Board of Agriculture, or of a competent engineer or practical surveyor named by them, is obtained, trustees may apply money in their hands in payment for them (s. 26). See also SEWERS, COMMISSIONERS OF.

[Authorities.-See, in addition to the authorities mentioned in the text, the list appended to the article PUBLIC HEALTH.]

Drains and Sewers.-The word drain is used in English law in different senses, according to the subject-matter to which it is applied. The primary meaning of the word is a passage-pipe or open channel for the removal of water or other liquid, especially from land or houses (see Century Dictionary, p. 1758).

House Drains.-By the Public Health Act, 1875 (in this article called P. H.), 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, s. 4, which repeats the words of the earlier Act of 1848, now repealed, " drain" is defined as meaning "any drain of, and used for the drainage of, one building only, or premises

« السابقةمتابعة »