Assessment Court

Bruce Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 2956, 29 April 1898, Page 5

Assessment Court

The adjourned sitting of this court was held on Tuesday the 26 0h instant. Hia Worship gave judgment in the appeal of Mr James Smith, Greenfield, against tho aßaeaiment ma c by tee valuator for improvements on the Greenfield estate. The judgment waa aa under: — Mr Smith makeß no objection to oapital value ol the property, but objects to the value of improvements as* being insufficient, | and that the unimproved value is tou high. The main points in dispute are the valuation for clearing, fenoing, and Eoglißh grass, iis to the cleariog, tue question ia whether tne clearing, sowing, and grubbing laud 1 to make it fit for ploughing iv improvement within the meaning of the Government Valuation of Land Aot, 1896. The evidence shows that the laud in its natural condition was covered with extensive patches of manuka scrub and mata-kuuri, which had to be cleared aud burnt before tho laud could be ploughed aud brought into cultivation. There can be no doubt mat clearing land in the ordinary meaning of the word i . au improvement to the land, and when that land is cultivated the benefit of the clearing is alwaya there and does not become exhausted. Ihereisno definition of the word •' improvements " in the Act, there ia in the; Rating in Unimproved Valuation Act, 1896, These acts are not specially incorporated, but it it* evident the word its intended to oonvey the same meaning in both acts. Section 9 of the Rating ia Unimproved Value Act, provides that the general valuation roll under that act shall be the roll from whioh the valuation rolls under whioh all local authorities rating in tbe capital or in the uoimproved value shall be framed. Unimproved value must therefore mean the sa<ne thing in both acts. Ihe definition of " improvementa " in the Rating on Unimproved Value Act, seotion 2, reads : "improvementa, includes water races (whether constructed by loan or otherwise), houses aad buiidingß, fencing, planting, draining, clearing from timber, scrub, or fern, laying down in grass or pasture, and any other improvament whatsoever in land, in so far as th 6 benefit thereof is unexhausted at the time of valuation, but doeß not include reclaiming of land from the Bea." It Ib therelore plain that clearing land from Borub bo far as the benefit therefore iB unexnausted ac the time of valuation is improvement to be taken into account by the valuers. It is true that a valuer may have no knowledge what the Burfaoe of the land was like in its natural state, and therefore., be unable to fix a value for clearing, and the valuer is therefore not to blame that the owuer has to come to the Assessment Court to prove that value. Mr Smith has had the benefit of the clearing for many years, but |it now represents aB muoh of the | money value of the land as ever it did, and it is in no sense exhausted. L'hereia no provision in the Act that the owuer'a use of the improvements for any length of time shall be equivalent to aotual exhaustion of the improvements, but whatever the present unexhausted value may be must be deducted from the capital value, aa the full benefit of thß clear. Dg is Btill there ; whatever auch work would cost now ia the preßent value of the improvements. The area cleared ia 18,500 acres, and 1000 partially oleared and Burface sown. The evidenoe Bhows the cost of clearing is not under-estimated at 10-J per acre, equal to £9,250 ; and 1000 acres at Bay ss— £soo, or £9750 — which mu*t be added to value of improvementa. With regard to fenoing, Mr Smith claims the value to be 15s per chain, exclusive of gates, gateposts, brackets, and droppers. The evidence differs very much as to value, and ranges from 15s per chain, excluding gates, &c, down to 10a per chain, including everything The fencing varies as to the length of time it has been erected, and some ot it has been np a good many years, although the evidence is that with Bmall exception it is in good order. Tha value of the fencing as an improvement to the estate will be what such fence would cost to ereot at the time of valuation, leßs a fair allowance for age, wear and tear. Taking the evidence as a whole, it seem to me that 15 1 a chain or £6G a mile, excluding the iron gates, would bea full present value of the fenoing if newly put up, and that a deduction of ith ail round is tbe smallest that could reasonably be made to reduce it to its present value, as an improvement. Mr Smith In a very straight forward manner has pointed out an error that arose as to the length of fencing which stood much in his favor. J now understand tbat the length is 148 miles which at £45 per mile comes to £6660, and I add to that £400 as the value of iron gate", There is 11 miles of wire netting, and Mr Smith's evidence that it is worth 12a 6d per obain has not been disputed ; that amounts to £550. There is a question about i the value ot Bbeep and cattle yardß. It appears that the yards at Glencoe were not Been, and therefore not allowed for by the valuer, and I think the valuation should be increased * r °m £200 to £400. An important item is the valuation for English grasses. The valuation made is IQ-j per agre $11 oyer.

The grass has been laid down from one to eigho or nine years, and witneasea speak highly of its quality and condition. The course of husbandry on the estate ia to plough up and lay down afresh every year from 1500 tb 2000 nores ; so at that rate the grass has now an average of fonr to five ; yeara to run. Mr Smith has admitted it j would be profitable if so muoh work oould i be got through to plough up and renew the grass every three or four yearß. There must, therefore, be a considerable difference in value between the oldest pasture and the new. The evidenoe as to the unexhausted value is very wide ; the witnesses in support of tho objeotion say the grass as an improvement has an average value of 25s an acre ; those in support of tbe present valuation say 10s. I tbink the witnesses in support of tbe objeotion look more at the cost (if laying down than to what has to be aucertained, that is, the unexhausted value of tbe grass as s factor in making up the capital value, and they make no allowanoe for depreciation of grass from four to nine yearn old. On the other hand, the witnesses against the objeotion bave not made adequate allowauce lor the high state oi cultivation and good condition of the grasß. I thiok the unexhausted value should be assessed at 1 6a per acre. It may as well to mention for public information that the Greenfield estate waa vaiued by tha valuator as follows :-- Capital value .£86,064, unimproved £57,596 improved .£28,618. By the judgment the capital value has not been altered, but the unimproved value is now set down at £48,579, instead of as above, and the improved value increased to £37,485. Mr •Smith's valuation was — capital value £86,064 (same aa valuation department), improved value £51 575, unimproved value £34,278. In the objections made by Meserß Begg Bros of Hillend Station it waß by oonuent cl i both parties agreed that the judgment should be based on the valuation previously assessed by the oourt on Mr Jas. Smith's "improve merits " on tbe Greenfield Estate ; plus a sum of £500 lor surface sowing. Mr D. Reid appeared for Messrs Begg Bros. The judg-nbot waa given assessing the valuation viz: Property of Mr J Begg, capital value £8029, unimproved £6349, improved £1680. The valuator's valuation was — capital value £8029, unimproved £6909, improved £1120. In Messrs Begg Bros, property tho judgment was — capital value £53 589, 'unimproved ,£36,169, improved £17,420. fho valuation by valuator was capital value £53,790, unimproved £39,580, improved £14,210.