CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL.

Last night a special meeting of the Pm ■ was held to consider objections winch t been made against the rate-'ists. Present: Messrs. Wilson (chairman r , denklau, Tombs, Duncan, Calvert ThlL"" Anderson, and Hislop. ' oniSol! 1 The minutes of last meeting »»« and confirmed. re re^ There were seventy-eight objections my 0 but some of them were to names Ti were altered as matters of ourse and oft were of too trivial a nature to' be of public interest. A few were referred f consideration to a meeting of the Council ut be held this evening, when the assessor \r J Ollivier, is expected to be in attendant l aid the Council in its deliberations % following were the principal objectors wh? applications were decided upon:- e Nathan and Co. objected that the as<P.. ment of their store was too high OMulr not allowed. Jectloll Wm. Deacon, Cashel street, objected tht his assessment was too high, and r> m Z that it be reduced to £3O. The proposal* adopted. r ffaa

Joseph Bailey objected to the & m < mi of Ills workshops and yard at £BO, and of hi house and garden at £6O, and proposed that the former should be reduced to £4O and til latter to £35. Neither proposal™ allotted. ' Block 14, section 988. T. D. Jones dm. posed to reduce the assessment 'of 'the cL govr Hotel to £6O. Not allowed! ' Block 17, section 1151 b. It was objected that the assessment was excessive as the premises were unoccupied, and the ground rent had exceeded the sums collected the property consisting of twelve tenements,' Not allowed. Block 1 (t.r.), seotion 87 p. It ffa sp lo . posed to reduce the assessment from £io t n £5. Not allowed. Block 4, section 95. Proposed that half the rating should be made in the name of Mrs Kindlysides, instead of the whole in that of Mr Armstrong. Not allowed. Block 5, section 67 a. It was objected that the assessment at £135 was too h\A Not allowed. Block 6 (t.r.). L. E. Nathan objected that the assessment was too high at £BS. Sot allowed. Block 10, section 180. The assessment was objected to as too high at|£2o. Not allowed. Block 7. L, E, Nathan proposed to reduce the assessment from £SO to £3O. Sot allowed. Block 10, sections 123 f and 123 h. C. Oswald proposed to reduce the assessment from £4O to £2O. Not allowed. Block 11, sections 121 a. Joseph Bailej proposed to reduce the assessment from £35 to £25. Not allowed. Block 11, section 6e. H. Wallis proposed to reduce the assessment from £35 to £25. Not allowed. Block 11, section 16. 0. W. Oakes proposed to reduce the assessment from £2O to £ls. Not allowed. Block 11, spction 105 d. Thos. Trephane objected that his assessment was too high it £35. Not allowed. Block 11, section 74. E. Deacon objected that he had ceased to occupy, and let to Mr Morgan on lease. Not allowed. Block 3, section 86 a. J. Woodman said lie was not the owner; Mr Caton was. Allowed. Block •♦, sections 69, &c. J. Plank objected that the assessment was too high at £35, and proposed that it be reduced to £ls, a portion of the land being built on bj other persons who are rated. Allowed. Block 5, section 133. W. Pmdhoe objected that his assessment was too high at £3O, and proposed to reduce it to £2O. Not allowed. Block 5, section 136. J. Stone objected that his assessment was too high at £4O. Not allowed. Block 9, sections 2R3 and 284. W.Keoway objected that he was not the owner, and said that J. C. Helnwre was. Alteratioa allowed. Block 10, section 271 c. T. Roach objected that his assessment was too high at £2O, and proposed to reduce it to £ls. M allowed.

Block 11, section 257 C. J. Buxton objected that the assessment was too high at £IOO, and proposed to reduce it to £BO. M allowed. Block 19, sections 364 and 383. E. Dearnley objected that the assessment was too high «j £SO, and proposed to reduce it to £ls, which was the rent received. Not allowed. Block 4, sections 194 and 196. Geo. Coates objected that the assessment was too high at £IOO, and proposed to reduce it to £SO. Not allowed. Block —, sections 247 b and d, and 2« i. Grisbrook objected that the assessment was too high. Not allowed. , Block 10, section 224. T. Beaver objected that the assessment was too high, anil proposed to reduce it to £l4, and asked toh»« his name substituted for J. Boyce of whom he had purchased. Not allowed; except the change of name. Block 11, sections 542 and;;s23. « ™ objected that the assessment was too high« £llO, and proposed to reduce it to» 1 Allowed Block'l2, section 807, t. jl F- Pl f* objected, that he was no longer owner, harms given up to H. E. Alport. Allowed. Block 13, section 559. It was proposM reduce the assessment to £6O. Notation Block 15, section 597. W. Dean? Z jected, that the assessment was too» £l3O, and proposed to reduce it to £l2O. k " Stock 15, section 599. W. HjorMPj posed to reduce the assessment to Allowed. , .„. Block 18. section 701 c. J. m VI posed to reduce the assessment from w £lB. Not allowed. ffo J Block 1 (t.r.) section 52 k. B. , proposed to have his assessment reau from £2O to £ls. Not allowed. . a Block 3 (t.r), section 160 b. W. W 2 proposed to reduce the assessment ft ol to £B. Not allowed. . i The Council soou afterwards a'^rLa The day for appeal to the Justices » » for to-morrow, when all persons who art satisfied with the decision of the Council. have their cases reconsidered at the» trate's Court.