THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



The references to the plan of the ground-floor of the front building 

 and lower part of the synagogue are as follow : — 



A. Open vestibule or loggia, with arches on coupled Tuscan 

 columns; 29 x 14.6'. 



B. Inner vestibule or corridor, communicating with J. J., the stair- 

 cafes to the galleries. 



C. The open area or floor of synagogue, 23 feet wide, between the 

 lower sittings, F. F. 



D. The readers' platform.— G. G. Waterclosets. — H. Office. — 

 I. Strong closet. --Iv. K. Staircases in the private residences. — 

 L. Secretary's residence.— M. AVarder's residence. 



In the other plan is the committee-room, 46 x 22 feet, and 0.0.0. 

 the ladies' galleries. 



:.:; ii jr'^. <=, ™J ;; ■■,-.-i& 



I IMIlUi LJLJiiii ii'ji 



^iiiillnftNllliiil 



' ''"'"nrijiij I 



!^^Ur!fe^t:;^',.^lUCa3 «Jj!,..a^^ -- 



PLAN OF UPPER FLOOR. 



PLAN OF GROUND FLOOR. 



Scale of Feet. 



10 20 30 40 50 60 

 I".- '■ r i ■ l-r I ■■■ J i 



REVIEWS. 



A Treatise on the Law of Dilapidations and Nuisances. By David 

 Gibbon, Esq., of the Sliddlc Temple, Special Pleader. London: 

 J. Weale, 1838. 



Architecture has its jurisprudence as well as medicine, and 

 equally as connected with the rights of property, as a matter of 

 police, it has been necessarily the subject of extensive legislation. 

 Coming more within the province of the lawyer than of the builder, and 

 being a subject in which the latter is not tarn Marie qiiam Mercurio, 

 we derive the greater pleasure from seeing it in the hands of one 

 who is best capable of doing justice to its technicalities. The utility 

 of its study is so evident, that there is indeed scarcely a day in which 

 its necessity is not impressed. Its extent, too, is so great, that 

 almost every branch requires a separate treatise, and it comprehends 

 the laws of contracts, awards, fixtui'es, dilapidations, nuisances, 

 buildings, sewers, drainage, prescriptive right, highways, &c. 



Mr. Gibbon has already obliged the profession with a work on 

 the law of fixtures, ar.d we are now indebted to him for one on 

 dilapidations. It does not diminish the confidence derived from its 

 predecessors, and is written in a plain and intelligible style, and sup- 

 ported by numerous legal authorities. 



In the' introduction, the author has given a general view of the 

 law on this subject, and then enters into the detail of its branches in 

 the subsequent chapters. In the first chapter we find the law of 

 dilapidation as it affects ecclesiastical structures and lands. The 

 second exhibits, with equal skill, this law as it regards leases, either 

 for life or dm-ing a term of years. From this chapter we shall 

 make a few extracts, and show our readers with what ability Mr. 

 Gibbon has treated his subject, although we must necessarily omit 

 the references to the notes. These, indeed, form a most valuable 

 and extensive portion of the work, and illustrate, by various autho- 

 rities, the law as explained by the author. 



For the natural decay of buildings, which is the inevitable effect of lime 

 or for fair and ordinary wear, a tenant for years is not, generally speaking 

 chargeable; but for extraordinary decay, caused by suffering the premises to 

 be exposed to the elements, or for accidents happening during the term, the 

 tenant is liable. .Sutfering houses to bo uncovered, whereby the s-pars or 

 rafters, planehers, or other timbers, become rotten, is waste ; but barely 

 suffering them to be uncovered, without rotting the timber, is not waste. 

 Where, after the determination of a yearly tenancy, the landlord had an esti- 

 n.ate made of the sum necessary to put the bouse into complete and tenantablo 

 repair, and brought his action for thai snm. Lord Kenyon said, " That it was 

 not to be permitted to go for the damages so claimed. A tenant from year 

 to year was bound to commit no waste, and to make fair and tenantable re- 

 pairs, such as putting in windows or doors that hare been broken by him, so as 

 to prevent waste and decay of the premises ; but that, in the present case, the 

 plaintiff claimed a sum for putting a new roof on an old worn-out house." In 

 another case, where plaintiff declared on a contract by defendant to deliver up 

 premises in same state as he received them, and merely proved a tenancy from 

 year to year, Gibbs, C. J., nonsuited the plaintiff, saying, " That the obligation 

 was staled too largely. Can it be contended," he continued, " that a yearly 

 tenant wovild be bound to rebuild if the premises were destroyed by accidental 

 fire, or if they hecame ruinous by any other accident ? He is only to use them 

 in a husband-like manner ;" that is, with ordinary care. In Anworth v. John- 

 son, an action against a yearly tenant, it appeared that the stairs of the house 

 were worn out, new sashes were wanted, t!ie doors were rotten and falling to 

 pieces from decay, latches, keys, and locks, were broken and damaged, and 

 a panel of a door was broken. Lord Tenterden, in summing up, said, " It 

 appears this was a very dilapidated house, when the defend,ints took it, and they 

 have had a very considerable quantity of work done upoii it. The first ques- 

 tion is, what are the things an occupier of a house from year to year is bound 

 to do ? He is o.ily bound to keep the premises wind and water tight. A 

 tenant, who covenants to repair, is to sustain and uphold the premises, but 

 that is not the case with a tenant from year to year. A great part of what is 

 claimed by plaintiff consists of new materials, where the old were actually 

 worn out ; for that the defendants are clearly not liable. But if you thirk that 

 defendants have done all that tenants from year to year ought to do, consider- 

 ing the state of the premises when they took them, the defendants are entitled 

 to your verdict.'' * * 



The covenant to repair must be construed with reference to the nature and 

 condition of the building as to age, &c., though it must be concluded that 

 the house was in proper and durable repair at the time of the demise. If it 

 appear that the covenants have been substantially complied with, and the 

 buildings are in as good condition as, considering their age, they n.ight 

 reasonably be expected to be, the landlord will have no right to complain of di- 

 lapid.itions. For this we have the hish authority of Tindal, C. .1., in three 

 several cases. la Harris v. Jones, the covenant was to leave the premises in 

 good and substantial condition. It .''ppcarcd, on the part of the landloid, that 

 glass in the skylight was broken to the amo nt of 40a., that ir.)n rails, tiling, 

 and coping, were dilapidated. Oil the part of the tenant it was proved, that 

 be had laid out considerable sums in repairs dtuing the term, and that the 

 premises were, in the whole, in tenantable repair, and in a better state than 

 when demised, The Lord Chief Justice said — " The question is, whether the 



