Now, in dealing with the matter of alleged injuries to buildings from vibration set up by Tube railways, I quote the following case to show how visionary are some of the claims brought against Tube Companies. On the 14th of October last, at the Lambeth County Court, an action was brought against the Great Northern and City Railway Company by an individual living in Hoxton for damage alleged to have been done to his premises by the construction of the tunnels. The plaintiff stated that in consequence of this the repairs of his house had cost him £62, and that in another house of his, cracks had appeared. A photograph, taken twelve months before the tunnels were made, which showed a crack in front of one of the houses, was pointed out to the witness, who said that he had never noticed it. For the defence Mr. Douglas Young stated that he acted for the Company when the tunnels were about to be constructed, and, anticipating claims of this nature, he caused photographs to be taken of all houses which showed cracks on the line of route. The cracks shown in the photos then taken were practically in the same condition now. The repairs necessary were not caused by damage done by the tunnels, and came entirely within the repairing clauses of the leases. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant Company on the ground that no damage had been done by them. On the other hand, among the Tube Railway cases brought into court last year and this, was the following, which illustrates the contention that though there may be a certain amount of truth in the plaintiff’s arguments, exaggerated ideas prevail as to the sums that can be claimed for injury, present or prospective. It also shows the uncertain state of the law on the subject of ownership of the subsoil--a hard legal nut. In the London Sheriff’s Court, 17th April, 1902, Mr. Under-Sheriff Burchell sat, with a special jury, to consider a claim for compensation brought by Mr. William Howard, of 11, Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, against the Baker Street and Waterloo Electric Railway. Mr. Morton, K.C., said that in August, 1900, Mr. Howard became aware that a subsidence was taking place, and that the walls of his house were cracking, this being unmistakably due to the borings for the railway which were being made underneath the property. In the course of these borings the Company had taken away part of the subsoil of the claimant’s premises without having given notice to treat, and this, counsel submitted, constituted a distinct trespass. The value of the property, counsel contended, had been deteriorated to the extent of at least £50 per annum. Mr. Howard’s lease had ten years to run, the rental being £200 a year.