to obtain from the Committee the relief he deems just.

Local Customs of Letting.—In the counties of Durham and Northumberland coal has usually been let at certain yearly rents for a specified number of "tens" of coal, with "tentale" rents upon all coals worked beyond the specified quantities. In Yorkshire and Lancashire the coal is let at yearly minimum reserved rents per acre, and acreage rents upon all coal worked beyond the quantities specified for the minimum rents. In other parts of England and Scotland, and generally in Wales and Ireland, the coal is let at minimum reserved yearly rents for specified quantities at a price per ton, and tonnage rents, or royalties, upon all coal worked beyond the specified quantities.

But in South Staffordshire, and some few places, the coal is let for certain rents and proportions of the selling price of the coal at the pit's mouth, such proportions varying from one-sixth to one-sixteenth part of the selling price of the coal.

These various customs do not at all affect the principle of valuation to be applied to the properties in which they prevail, though they may to some extent modify the form of the calculations upon which the valuer works, or which he presents to a Court.

CHAPTER XII.

INJURIES FROM MINING.

THE respective rights of the owners of surface lands, and of the owners of minerals underlying such lands directly and laterally, have of late years been the subject of much discussion, and since the last edition several important cases have been decided in respect thereof, which will hereafter be noticed.

Injuries to surface lands from mining operations may be considered under three heads: (1) Where the relations between the owners of the minerals and surface are not governed by any contract. (2) Where they are so governed. (3) Where they are governed by Inclosure Acts.

We propose to consider these three heads in their order, giving cases illustrating each.

1. Where the relations between the owner of the surface injured and the owner of the minerals are not governed by any contract, the liability of the latter for injury is governed by different rules, according as the surface is or is not in its natural state; that is to say, is or is not encumbered with buildings.

The owner of the surface in its natural state is

entitled to have his surface supported in this state, and the mine-owner must so work his minerals as not to injure the surface. A leading case upon this point is Humphreys v. Brogden (20 L. J. N. S., Q. B. 10, 12 Q. B. 747). In that case the surface belonged to the plaintiff, and the minerals to the defendants, the Durham County Coal Company. No evidence of title appeared to qualify their rights of enjoyment. In the course of their operations the defendants had caused the plaintiff's surface to subside, and so caused injury to the surface. The Court found in favour of the plaintiff's right to recover. In delivering the judgment of the Court, Lord Campbell said "the jury have found that the company have worked carefully according to the custom of the country, but without leaving sufficient pillars or supports. We have to consider, when the surface of land belongs to one man and the minerals belong to another (no evidence of title appearing to regulate or qualify their rights of enjoyment), whether the owner of the minerals may remove them without leaving support sufficient to maintain the surface in its natural state. The case is relieved from the consideration how far the rights and liabilities of owners of adjoining tenements are affected by the erection of buildings, for the plaintiff claims no greater degree of support for his lands than they must have required and enjoyed since the globe subsisted in its present form. We are of opinion that the owner of the surface, unencumbered by buildings, and in its natural state, is entitled to have it supported by the subjacent mineral strata. These strata may of course be removed by the owner of them, so that a sufficient

support for the surface is left. Unless the surfaceclose be entitled to this support from the close underneath, corresponding to the lateral support to which it is entitled from the adjoining surface-close, it cannot be securely enjoyed as property, and under certain circumstances, as where the minerals approach the surface, and are of great thickness, it might be entirely destroyed. We likewise think that the rule, giving the right of support to the surface upon the minerals (in the absence of any express grant, reservation, or covenant), must be laid down generally, without reference to the nature of the strata, or the difficulty of propping up the surface, or the comparative value of the surface and the minerals."

In this case the injury was caused by working minerals directly under the surface injured. That the same liability attaches to the mine owner who causes injury to the surface not lying directly over his mine appears from the case of Bonomi v. Backhouse, which is cited also as an authority for showing that the right to bring an action for injury to surface caused by withdrawal of proper support accrues not when the coal is extracted but when the surface is injured. The facts in Bonomi v. Backhouse (27 L. J. Rep. Q. B. 387, 33 L. T. Rep. 333), were these: The plaintiff was the owner of certain surface, and of an ancient house and buildings upon it. The defendant had worked a certain mine and left proper supports; but he afterwards worked another mine, 280 yards from the plaintiff's property, in such a way that the roof of the mine and surface of the land fell in, and caused a "thrust," which extended through the intervening workings to

those under the plaintiff's premises, causing the surface to subside so as to damage the foundations and walls of his buildings. The working which caused the thrust was more than six years before the action was commenced, but the actual damage to the buildings did not take place till within six years from the time the action was brought. The Court of Exchequer Chamber decided that " no cause of action accrued for the mere excavation by the defendant in his own land so long as he caused no damage to the plaintiff, and that a cause of action did accrue when the actual damage first occurred."

In this case nothing turned upon the pressure exerted by the buildings themselves, but it was not disputed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover compensation for the damage to his house and buildings by the taking away of the lateral support to which his surface was entitled.

Another case in point is that of Brown v. Robins (28 L. J. Ex. 250). In that case the plaintiff's house was built more than twenty years before, upon land under which coal had been worked, according to the custom of the country, with ribs and pillars left as supports. The defendant knowing this, worked his coal mines under land adjacent, but not immediately adjoining, so as to cause the soil intervening to give way, and thus to cause the soil under the foundation of the plaintiff's house also to give way. It was held that the defendant was liable. Lord Chief Baron Pollock said: "If it were necessary (which it is not) to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to support for the house, as a house, we should be disposed to