276

Sale of guano by sample-A guaranteed analysis
sent-Bulk differing from sample-Variance be-
tween analysis and sample-Warranty-Contract
---Reduction in price as a set-off to damages for
breach of warranty..
Leasehold-Charge by purchaser on an unexecuted
contract-Notice to vendor-Completion of con-
tract notwithstanding-Liability of vendor....
Contract to deliver goods according to sample-
Goods not equal-Latent defect-Inspection of
goods-What is an acceptance?-Right to return 336
Goods to be of fair quality in opinion of broker-
Action against broker for want of skill
Specific performance-Statute of Frauds--Produc-
tion of lessor's title.

281

WATER COMPANY.

Power to charge water rates according to amount of
rent-Rates paid by owner-Tenements under
£10 per annum-Rent or annual value-Deduc-
tions to be allowed from rent-Sheffield Water-
works Acts

(See Joint Stock Company.)

199

WATERWORKS ACT.

Sect. 6-Consequential damages, remedy for

298

(See Water Company.)

348

371

Construction

526

Concealed fraud -Purchaser for valuable considera-
tion without notice-Lapse of time-Reasonable
diligence

Mistake Misdescription in particulars-Conditions
of sale produced for the first time in the auction
room-Rescission of contract--Delay in repudia-
ting contract

Rectification of conveyance by decree-Endorsement
of decree on the deed.

59, 89, 141, 207, 326, 366,
408, 472, 477, 480, 481, 505, 538, 575, 603, 752, 811
Interest of a tenant for life in the profits of a busi-

House of Lords.

Reported by DOUGLAS KINGSFORD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

June 29, 1871; Feb. 15, and April 30, 1872. (Present, Lord CHELMSFORD, Lord WESTBURY, Lord COLONSAY, and Lord CAIRNS.)

DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH v. THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

Compensation Award-Admissibility of umpire's evidence-Riparian proprietor-Lands "injuriously affected"-Lands Clauses Act 1845, s. 63Thames Embankment Act, s. 27.

The plaintiff was the lessee of a certain house and premises, abutting on the river Thames at Whitehall, for the residue of a term of 99 years. Part of the premises in question consisted of a causeway leading from the garden of the house, and running out into the river at low water mark. This causeway had for a long period been used for landing and embarking goods. The defendants, under the powers of the Thames Embankment Act (25 & 26 Vict. c. 93) constructed an embankment, and in the course of so doing took away the causeway and a landing place connected with it and direct access from the plaintiff's premises to the river was cut off by a public roadway.

The plaintiff thereupon gave the defendants, under the Lands Clauses Act 1845, notice of arbitration and claim for compensation, stating in his notice that he was owner of the causeway, as lessee, and entitled to the use of the landing place, and claiming compensation for their removal and for the depreciation in value of the house and lands, and otherwise injuriously affecting them.

The arbitrators referred the question of amount to an umpire, who eventually awarded 83251. to the plaintiff. This sum the defendants refused to pay, and an action on the award was brought. Among other pleas, the defendants pleaded that the sum awarded included damages and compensation in respect of which neither the arbitrators nor the umpire had any jurisdiction whatever. At the Vol. XXVII., N.S., 669.

[H. OF L.

trial the defendants called the umpire as a witness, who stated that among other items he had awarded 50001. for diminution in value of the house, and that in fixing the amount he had taken into consideration the loss of privacy and other "amen ities" by reason of the defendants' works. Held, first (affirming the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber): That the umpire's evidence was admissible to show what matters were considered by him, and generally the course of the proceedings up to the making of the award; but not to show the considerations which affected the umpire's mind in determining the quantum of compensation. Secondly (reversing the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber): That the plaintiff's property was injuriausly affected" by the interposition between it and the river of an embankment to be used as a public highway; and that the umpire was, therefore, authorised both by the special Act and the Lands Clauses Act, to give the plaintiff compensa

tion.

66

Per Lord Cairns: The plaintiff was, as a riparian proprietor, entitled to compensation for depreciation in the value of his property arising from a deprivation of the right to water frontage. The cases of Hammersmith Railway Company v. Brand (21 L. T. Rep. N. S., 238; L. Rep. 4 H. L. Cas., 171) and Glasgow Union Railway Company v. Hunter (L. Rep. 2 Sc. App. 78) commented on.

ERROR from a judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, in part affirming, and in part reversing, a judgment of the Court of Exchequer.

The facts are shortly stated in the head-note; and fully in the reports in the courts below: (18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 906; 23 Id. 255; L. Rep. 3 Exch. 306; 5 Id. 221.)

The following judges were present at the hearing:-Martin, B., Byles, Blackburn, Smith, and Hannen, JJ., and Cleasby, B.

Sir R. Palmer, Q.C. and Kemplay for the plaintiff in error.

Hawkins, Q.C. and Philbrick for the defendant's in error.