sheds and other erections and improvements which should be erected, built, or made upon the demised premises, in good repair and condition." The tenant, during his term, erected a plate-glass shop-front in lieu of the old window, and for the purpose of making the shop more convenient for his trade; the front in question was not fixed to the premises by screws, or nails, or bolts, but by wedges only. The tenant contended that he had a right to remove the plate-glass shop-front, and to replace the old window as it had existed at the time of the demise. The Court of Common Pleas decided against this contention. Mr. Baron Martin observed: "We think that even if this plate-glass front was not a window,' it was, at all events, an improvement within the terms of the covenant."

But where general words follow the enumeration of specific articles, the general words are construed as relating to the same class of articles as those specifically enumerated. Thus in a covenant by a tenant to yield up at the expiration of his term the premises demised, together with all locks, keys, bars, bolts, marble and other chimney-pieces, foot-paces, slabs, and other fixtures and articles in the nature of fixtures put up during the term, it was held that neither tenants' fixtures nor trade fixtures were included in the covenant, the general rule of law as to the construction of such covenants being that verba generalia following upon enumerated particulars are to be construed as generalia ejusdem generis. The question of the right of removal of property in such cases as have been instanced depends not upon any rule of law as to whether the article in dispute is or is not so annexed to the soil as to be movable by the tenant, but upon the legal construction of the covenants between the parties.

There is another important result of a general covenant to repair which must be noted here. Suppose a tenant from year to year, or without any express covenant to repair, erects structures or improvements, and subsequently takes a lease of the same premises with a general covenant to repair, the lessee would be restrained from removing those structures at the termination of the tenancy so created, although he might have removed them previous to the commencement of his lease.

If a tenant, on the determination of his tenancy, takes any fresh interest in the premises, he should take care to reserve expressly his right to remove those fixtures which he had, under the old tenancy, the right to sever and remove, otherwise the tenant may lose his property in them altogether; and it may be generally stated that the right of a tenant to remove fixtures may be divested by any new agreement for the use and enjoyment of the land in which there is no mention of the fixtures.

If a tenant has, by the terms of his lease, the privilege of selling his fixtures to an incoming tenant, he must be taken to have the right of onstand on the premises for that purpose. His property in

the fixtures would not determine in such case at the expiration of his lease. Where a tenant has paid for an article by valuation on entering upon his tenancy, he has a right to presume he shall be valued out as he was valued in, and in general the rights between the incoming and outgoing tenant are governed by the same rules as those which govern the relation of landlord and tenant; but where there is no mention of fixtures they will be considered in the demise, neither does the acceptance of a lease of a house containing fixtures raise any implied contract to pay for the fixtures. The tenant is entitled to the use of the fixtures, and the landlord cannot afterwards remove them nor insist on a valuation.

It is therefore important in leases or other conveyances, when it is intended that the fixtures should be valued and paid for independently, that this intention should be clearly expressed, and an enumeration of the fixtures made in the instrument of conveyance by schedule or otherwise.

Where the outgoing tenant stipulates with the incoming tenant for a purchase of the fixtures at a valuation, the landlord should in all cases be made a party to such agreement; otherwise, if the fixtures are allowed to remain until the incoming tenant has taken possession, the landlord may dispute the right of purchase and sale, and claim the fixtures on the ground that the outgoing tenant has divested himself of the right to remove the fixtures by neglecting to exercise his right during his term.

It will be readily seen how important it becomes to the architect or surveyor, who may be required to survey and value in accordance with the terms of such agreements, that he should be able clearly to discriminate between such articles as properly fall within the specific terms of a covenant to repair or to sell at a valuation, and those which the outgoing tenant may sever and remove. In cases where the deed contains a schedule enumerating the articles in question, no difficulty can arise on this point; but where no such schedule is drawn up, and the surveyor has to rely for guidance upon general words in a covenant, a knowledge of legal principles is indispensable; and whatever may be his views in regard to the justice of the case, he must be careful not to insert in his valuation any articles which, although generally removable by the tenant, are yet within the scope and meaning of an express covenant. Such articles become the property of the landlord upon the determination of the tenancy, and it is always necessary for an incoming tenant, who takes what are termed "fixtures" at a valuation from an outgoing tenant, to secure his title to those fixtures as against the landlord, by making him a party to the agreement; otherwise, as we have seen, the incoming tenant may lose his right of disposing of the articles so purchased by him when his tenancy in turn expires; and wherever it is desirable for the outgoing tenant to leave fixtures upon the premises after the term, for purposes of valuation and sale, or for any other purpose, he should obtain his landlord's

consent to their so remaining. If the architect or surveyor is thus clearly informed on the strict legal rights existing between the parties, he may save his client considerable expense, and at the same time place him in a position to make those concessions which a sense of justice may dictate. There does not appear to be any strict rule of law, nor yet any well-established usage with regard to the remuneration of the architect or surveyor; he is in general paid according to his labour, but this should be the subject of express agreement.-Architect.

Reviews.

Manual of the Public Houses (Scotland Acts) with Decisions thereon, Reference to Cases under the English Public Houses Statutes, and Notes relative to Appeal and Review in Scotland, and an Appendix containing the Acts and Relative Forms. By JAMES CAMPBELL IRONS, M.A., S.S.C., Edinburgh. Revised by E. ERSKINE HARPER, Esq., Advocate and Barrister-at-Law, Edinburgh. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1876.

THERE are at least four statutes in total or partial existence which have application to, and which regulate the retail traffic in excisable liquors in Scotland-the Home Drummond Act, the Forbes Mackenzie Act, the Public Houses Amendment Act of 1862 and the Publicans' Certificates Act of 1876. If the inhabitants of Scotland are not temperate, it is not for want of legislation. But the obvious danger is that one may get confused amid this mass of statutes. Parts of the earlier Acts are repealed or superseded; and it is often difficult to know what parts are extant and what parts are extinct. It has been the object of the writers of this book to arrange these provisions and to explain them by reference to decisions thereon. Reference is also made to decisions of the English Courts on the English Statutes of the same kind so far as they bear upon, and are applicable to our Scotch Statutes. The book contains first of all an analysis of the various Acts, which is carefully and well done, and the preparation of which, as those may know who have ever been engaged in the like occupation, must have cost a great deal of pains and trouble. The manner in which this analysis is printed with bold headlines for each paragraph greatly facilitates reference, but it would have been an improvement if there had been a table of contents. The appendix contains the four Acts already referred to, but somehow or other it omits the Tippling Act, which although it is not exclusively a Scotch Act, does apply to Scotland. This might more appropriately have been introduced than the Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland) Act 1875, which is not a Public House but a Procedure Act.

VOL. XX. NO. CCXXXVIII.-OCTOBER 1876.

2 P

Public Houses Statutes:-" The Home Drummond Act," 9 Geo. IV. c. 58 (1828); "The Forbes Mackenzie Act," 16 & 17 Vict. c. 67 (1853); "The Public Houses Acts Amendment (Scotland) Act," 25 & 26 Vict. c. 35 (1862); “The Publicans' Certificates (Scotland) Act," 39 & 40 Vict. c. 26 (1876). With Notes, Decided Cases, and Extracts from Commissioners' Report. Arranged by HUGH BARCLAY, LL.D., Sheriff-Substitute of Perthshire. Second Edition, with additions. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1876.

Ir never rains but it pours. If there is a book on Roman Law published one day, there is sure to be another ushered into the world the next; nay, sometimes the same day has seen the birth of twins-though by different mothers. And it appears to be the same with treatises on Public House Statutes. The indefatigable Dr. Barclay, the Sheriff-Substitute of Perth, has also published a book on this subject, one with which the studies required for the preparation of his previous book about the duties of a Justice of the Peace have necessarily made him familiar. The work is constructed on a different plan from that above noticed. Instead of first making an analysis of the Acts, and adding the Acts in an appendix, he simply annotates the Acts. Both plans have their advantages, which are so obvious that it is hardly necessary to point them out.

Dr. Barclay's book contains a fuller collection of the Acts themselves than Mr. Irons' and Mr. Harper's book. It contains the Act referred to in the previous notice; and perhaps it was intended that the books should regard the matter from different points of view, and represent different interests. Each of these books have their uses, and we can cordially recommend them, not only to lawyers, but to publicans and other sinners.

Obituary.

LORD ARDMILLAN died at his residence in Edinburgh on the 6th of September. The deceased Judge was born in 1805. In 1829 he was admitted a member of the Scottish Bar. After acting as Advocate-Depute for some time, he was appointed Sheriff of Perth in 1849; in 1853 he became Solicitor-General; and in 1855 he was made a Judge of the Court of Session and the Court of Justiciary.

When at the Bar, the late Judge never had much practice in civil cases. In criminal cases, as we learn from the traditions of the elders, few men could so stir the hearts of a jury and win their verdict. When appointed to a Judgeship, there was the usual outcry when a counsel who has little practice is promoted upon the advice of persons who have opportunities of discerning and the

faculty of discernment. Lord Ardmillan soon proved that his appointment was one which was deserved by himself, and which was of advantage to the profession and the country.

It cannot be said that the late Judge was great in matters of pure law. But in dealing with matters of fact, in proofs and trials, he displayed the sagacity which might be expected from his innate shrewdness, and the experience he had gained from mixing, as his frank nature allowed him to do, with all sorts and conditions of men. He excelled as a Justiciary Judge. If there was any fault to be found in his character in that respect, it was that his sentences were sometimes a little too severe. This was due in part to his natural hatred to deliberate wrongdoing; and it may have been due in part to the experience which he had acquired in his successful defences of evil characters. It is the Nemesis of Fortune that counsel who have been successful in getting off rascals should, after they arrive in the future judicial world, compound for it by punishing the same class of characters severely.

Ardmillan was not known to the public merely as a lawyer and a Judge. Before he became a Judge he took an active and effective part in politics on the Whig side. He took a lively interest in ecclesiastical matters. He was a sincere member of one of the Presbyterian denominations; but his churchism was not narrow, neither was his belief. His character exhibited a happy mixture of the Puritan and the Cavalier. Eager in ecclesiastical matters, he took a lively interest in all sorts of sports, of manly and indeed of equestrian exercises.

But above all things, what made Ardmillan remarkable, was his warm heart, his open, generous, and manly nature. He possessed the nameless charm, the irresistible talisman, which wins affection. The nameless charm! Why, it is the open secret. He was always kind, and always so in the right way. One could see this in comparatively trifling matters. There are many members of the Bar who have practised before him in their first Circuit days, the days when one speaks with pride on the lip and a quivering in the heart,-who must remember the generous praise which he always gave to any one who was trying to do his best; and still more, the quiet hints as to the conduct of a case, conveyed in the most delicate manner -in a way in which it would be discerned by the person to whom it was addressed, and would be concealed from others. These little things reveal character, inspire regard, encourage a diffident spirit, linger in the memory, and sometimes influence a career.

It having been appointed to all men once to die, one can hardly regret the death of the late Judge. He spent a happy and a useful life, and his closing years were adorned with all "that should accompany old age, -as honour, love, obedience, troops of friends."