LAW CHANGED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 136, 11 June 1934, Page 3

LAW CHANGED.

RATE OBJECTIONS.

OFFERING LAND TO CROWN

MAGISTRATE'S ADVICE,

Points of general information about the offering of properties to the Crown were given in an unofficial capacity by the president of the Assessment Court, Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., this morning, when properties in the borough of Birkenhead were being considered. Before the Court was formally opened, the magistrate answered questions that objectors asked him respecting the law. Assessors with Mr. Hewitt were Messrs. E. Allen for the Government and M. K. Souster for the borough.

\Mien one objector announced his intention of offering his property to the Crown. Mr. Hewitt hold him that before he did so he ought to be informed that the law regarding offering had been changed. The Valuer-General, lie said, now had much wider powers than formerly. He had the right to take an offered property 011 behalf of the Government, or to offer it to the local body concerned, or to make any private arrangement he liked. A property could not new be offered for less than the amount of the mortgage together with any rates or other charges owing 611 it. "What I am saying is unofficial," Mr. Hewitt added, "and is iny opinion only. If I were in a private capacity, 1 should consult a lawyer before I offered a property to the Crown, because you may get a result you do not want." Another question concerned the time the Valuer-General could take to sell Lhe property. Mr. Hewitt said that while the objector had still to offer the property within 14 days, the ValuerGeneral could take his own time in disposing of the property. Of course, 110 would take a reasonable time, but actually there was 110 time limit. No Right of Withdrawal. "What right of withdrawal has a property owner after he has offered it?" asked another. A property could not bo withdrawn, replied Mr. Hewitt. Supposing the Valuer-General arranged a sale of which the owner did not ajiprove, though the owner refused to sign the transfer, that would not matter, since the ValuerGeneral had the power to sign it for him. Mr. Hewitt said he was going to rule that the valuation of any properties which, after what he had said, were still intended to be offered, should be sustained. That would give the objector a decision to appeal against. If, too, a prooertv owner elected to have his case heard, and was dissatisfied with the rc/ult, he had still the right to offer it to the Crown. He gave general information about mortgages. The actual amount of a mortgage, he said, was the liguio to be taken into account when a property was to be offered. If an amount had been paid off a mortgage, then, of course, the actual mortgage was that figure less the amount paid off. A mere promise by a mortgagee to reduce an amount would not be sufficient. The promise would have had to be made binding in law.

Altogether there were about 80 objections, and a large number offered tlieir properties to the Crown in spite of what the magistrate had said.