ASSESSMENT COURT.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10058, 9 June 1898, Page 6

ASSESSMENT COURT.

RANGIORA. Wednesday, June 8. (Before H. W. Bishop, Esq., Judge.) VVAIPARA. Cas<!«i adjourned from April 19th and 28tli, and till June Bth, were resumed. Mr •A. P. O'Callaghan, supervising valuer, was present. Mr O'Callaghan slated, regarding Sir G. Clifford's case and tStoneyhurst Estate, that after the assessment it was found 1108 acres had been omit led. It had not been returned in the owner's statement, and Airs Campbell's return showed it was not brought into the adjoining property to which it was supposed to belong. A valuation of this 1108 acres had been made, which was challenged by Sir George, and, as the supervising valuer, lie had agreed if the Court would do so to have tli3 matter heard. Mr Hiehop &aid there must be finality as far as the «.bjeetiotis Mere concerned. Hβ bad a list sera in to be dealt with, on tnat list was the fe'toneykurst property, and reaching it he w*-j told thu l'epartiiient and Sir G*orge Clittoid had agreed to a valuation "which ho lud entered ; and the matter was at an end to far as he was concerned. SSir Geo. CJiiitrd admitted that he had not been satisfactorily dealt with by the Department, and widhed now to go into the matter in Court Mr Bishop had no doubt but the Comm:>*K'iier of i'axr.s wuuh! consi ler the nutter fairly, but he would not attempt to re-opeu any who. Ihe vase of G. H. Moore, Glenm;irk, adjourned -from April 28th, was resumed. Mr T. iS. VVeston, with -\Jr liroivii (VV'ynn-Wil-liains and I'iymvh), appeared for the objector, Mr I'rM-swell tor the l-und Tax Department. Ihe nbjcition in respect of Glciiuiark was 30G0 ncvi.i, homestead, capital \ due improvemeuU £92b0; 4770 acres, capital value £19,094, without improvements; aud 56,587 acres, capital value i;188,82'l, improvements i>5611, the total acreage ol the wUiole properties was 71,646 acres, of an Rggreguto value of £294,757, equal to a capital valiio of JM 2s, or unimproved £3 17s BJd per acre. '1 he objector claimed £4 6s as the- unimproved value, equal to £505,4/7 16s 6d, the increase asked lor by Mr Alooic being equal to £25,000. He applied for an increase in valuation for improvements from £9280 to £14,280 on the homestead and ior other improvements on the- other land, which Were nut taken ii.to account by the valuer. A. 1 , . O'Calhigjian, supervising valuer, examined by Mr Weston, said there were three oiUcial.s concerned in the valuation. The local valuer made the valuation, which was subject to revision by consultation bejtween Mr Dick and hunsolf. Hβ could nay that Mr Knight (the valuer) was not interfered with, but he consulted Mr Dick. .Witness knew of the assessment, but did not deal,with the figures. He visited the local valuers and examined their books, and he caw this valjation in that way, and had conversation with Mr Knight as to his valuation. He did not alter the ligures or instigate tho.n. After the valuation was made, the book was lianded in to witness. Mr Knight did not explain how ho arrived at iiis assessment, but he had a general idea, as the valuer was told to give a fair market .Valuation of the Glenmark property. Mr Bishop here said he had. made it a principle to decide all these assessments on strict evidence, and there was no need to go into how the assessment was carried out, •a he should decide the matter on the absolute question of evidence as to the valuation; and there was no need to labour the question. Mr Weston said ho was not anxious to delay but to test the manner of the valuation. Witness, resuming, said he allowed the valuation of Mr Knight to remain as he got it. Hβ was acquainted with Glenmark, and had been over the property, and taking the estate all round, it was a fair average value. ■He could not cut the property up or uiock it and give the valuation of the separate blocks. Mr Bishop said he should hold that no one could give an approximate valuation over so large a property as that. It was outside if human ingenuity to do so. Witness said his principle of valuation was to divide the land into agricultural and pastoral land—the agricultural land into first, second, and third quality, and the pastoral into first and second class. In valuing a valuer should take a view of selling and productive values, and the general position of the property. Asseeing Glenmark, he expected Mr Knight thought of all these principles or witness would not have accepted it. Glenmark was fairly well situated for railway purposes, but the best positions were away from the line. That land on Glenmark near Waipara and Waikari, he admitted, .was well served for railway. The estate was not well roaded. He was surprised to hear that there was sixty-three miles of macadamised road. It was not much road in 72,000 acres, and could not say how far the roads had been estimated in valuing. The roads served other people as well as Mr Moore. Hd knew something of the producing powers. The carrying capacity was a sheep per acre The last sheep returns gave abont 72,000 sheep on the owner's return. The sheep return for 1895 was 78,000, and 1896 72,000. He could not give the return for 1897. It was not carrying as many sheep as it might do. The estate in some portions could be cut up for sale purposes, but some ofit was badly watered. It was only a part that could be cut up on account of the want of water and nature of the land. Could not say what area could be put into crop. He did not consider any part of the estate very good cropping land. Last went over ithe estate seven years ago. The estate in that time had not in his opinion deteriorated. In ten years its value in the market remained about the same. Could 5° j ** c Bbee P carrying capacity had diminished. Some of the land around Glenmark had gone down in value and some blocks had increased. Land previously being overestimated was one cause of depreciation, and Mr Moore having a monopoly of the hind had an effect. It was impossible to say whether Mr H. F. Gray's Hand, contiguous to Glenmark. or Mr Moore's was the most valuable. He objected to raise Glenmark valuation as he did not coneider its intrinsic value was sufficient. As to reasons for refusing to increase Mr Moore's valuation, the returns from the land had been disappointing. It had proved itself not to bo good grain-growing land. The climate was against it. and it was not the cropping land which it was supposed to ' be. These remarks had reference to Waikari, but Glenmark was in the same position. He could not point; to a particular instance where the cropping had been disappointing. He knew that the disappointment applied to the whole. It was his opinion that the Glenmark land was not worth so much as i Cheviot. There was £3 2s 6d given per acre for Cheviot, and it was worth a great deal more than Glenmark. Allowing for proximity to railway and other points Cheviot, at time of purchase, was worth £1 per acre more. His opinion was distinctly that Glenmark was inferior in cutting up, and a worse climate than. that of Cheviot. Though he had not blocked the estate he had a good knowledge of the estate. Mr Knight had not, on this ground, over-valued * Glenmark. Had been over Cheviot, and practically Cheviot was cheaper in its unimproved state than Glenmark. When the Government bought Cheviot the Government &ad a bargain of about 15s per acre, and now there was a good will in it of £2 per . acre. As some of the selling values of land on Cheviot were £14 per acre, the Department had to take other matters beside the selling value in making a valuation for taxation, purposes. Mr Moore now wanted i an excessive valuation. In 1892 he valued the estate of Uienmark. as distinguished from Waikari, at £4 3s 2d per acre unimproved. Mr Knight's present valuation this year was £3 7s Id. He approved of Mr Knight's reduction. In 1892 Mr' Moore wanted a high valuation on Waikari (which i wm too high in witness's opinion, but he r yielded to Him), and ho liad to raise the Glenmark in dealing with the whole of the estate. The assessments of 1891 had relOaincd till this year, unless altered by the , local bodies. Sales had caused a rising in , aome c&aos. In the Waikari sales had been lower, and valuations •were made to correspond. To Mr Bifhop—l.ands had brought less since the 1891 ▼alo&Uon, in case of Mr Moore, *>ome of whose land had been .bringing exceptionally high prices. fi To Mr Wes*ou—.tfhe Stoneyhurst valuation had bwn laiued by Mr Koigut, and with witness* approval. In 1882 it was valued , »t £2 12» 6d per acre, and now about £2 J5», under Zβ 6d per acre increaae. The 1892 Meteaeeat ol Sumyrhuxn wa* arranged

with the owner. Tipapa, he thought, had been raised. It was not £2 15s per acre. Sloneyhurst had a valuable house, and ite carrying capacity was iic].-roving. Sir Western—But as to unimproved value. Witnsss was not sure tilt he looked at his figures. It was increi?ed about 10s per acre unimproved. The former valuation was £46,974, and the present £55,660, representing 7s 6d per acre of an increase to £2 7s 6d. The relative advantages wtre such that Stoneyhurst was getting up to Gleni in. irk Stoneyhurst was rather undervalued. It was ftn ansngement made to avoid fighting the matter. Knew enough of the two properties u< make a comparison, and thought Gleninark was worth 7s 6d per acre more if they were of the same quality in land. Stoiievhurst was carrying irom 26,000 1895, iuid 24,000 1896. Wir Geo. Clifford s-aid Stoneyhurst was carrying 20,000 icLtep to 24,000 acres. "Mr Cre&sw,ell---Fivesmhs of a sheep per acre. < Witness said that as fo Tipapa, it was a J high carrying run on account ol the turnips and crop la.teu. As to relative comparison, ii m tiie same positon Tipapa wouid be as good. The latter was well treated, while 'jK'nrnark was neglected. Mr Weston objected to the term Mr Bishop said no one who had seen Gleninark cuuld say otherwise than that ] i , . was neglected, and not fully farmed. Exanmuti in resume!—Motanau had been increased in valuation on a recent sale at £5 5s per acre to £5, which was reduced by tihe Assessment Court to £4 per acre. As compared with £3 7s Id for Glenmark he thought £4 too high for Motanau. but the latter waa fixed by the fact of the recent sale. Glen-nark, he admitted, was a valu able property capable of being very much improve l. As to the neglected state he was afiiiii that the English grass was worn out. Would m t be surprised that there had been 3000 acres of English grass, but it was perished. Might have spoken generally* to Air McMillan about the estate, Out did not go into figuies. Had seen the Gleninark Mieep, which vere good and bad. Would not say the bad prepun-Jerated, but some of the stock was in poor, inferior condition. Greta l'eiks was bought at £3 2s bd by Air Muunering. In 1891 it was assessed at £5. It is now £3 2s 6d. He did not say it was low, but not a high value. It was not possible to compare Greta Peaks with Glenmark. He thought Cheviot being sold at a low value caused the value of Glenmark to suffe*. The latter would not realise so much if sold as a whole as if sold in parcels. At the Wuikari portion he placed the value of £9, £7 10s, iJ4 10s, £la for near the township, and in the townsJup £".0 per acre, and Relieved tlvue values had been reached by sales lot certain parcels. To Mr Ciesswell—-To make a consistent valuation in .1891 he averaged- the Waikari and Gleninark land. He thought that the sea carriage from Cheviot was an advantage o"cr Glenmark. ,'l'he fact- that a property was sold on terms did not give its actual value. To Mr Bi#hop—He did not quite agree with Mr Knight s basis of valuation of land that would carry a sheep to the acre as being worth £3. Frank Davie, licensed surveyor, said he had surveyed portions of Glenmark for settlement in the Omihi Valley, the Waikari Valley, the 'Limestone, and the Cattle Peaks. The Omihi agricultural land, ploughable and flat, was 5000 acres, except gullies of sm'njll area. The soil was very good. Of the Waikari block an area of 12,000 acres was mostly all ploughable, but lix»0 acres. The Omihi Valley was very good and easily drained, more so than the Waikari block. The Limestone block was 3000 acres, and the hill top could be cultivated for turnips. The Cattle Peaks were good pastoral land, some of it .being ploughable. There were 2488 acres, and 500 acres adjoining were ploughable. There were arterial macadamised roads through the estate, and if the estate was cut up they -would be of use and service. They were good roads. The lots marked agricultural holdings were all served by roads. The natural grass on Glenmark would compare favourably with other stations. On the homestead the English grass was worked down. A. Earshman, sheep farmer for thirtyfive years, and twenty-two years in North Canterbury, said he was not connected with Glenmark except joining on the boundary. Hβ had not communicated with Mr Moore. He had inspected the land and blocked it for valuation purposes. The Omihi, of 4000 acres, was rich loamy land, with good streams, and as good land as could be seen outside Rangiora. or Woodend districts. He valued it at not less than x>j.O per acre. The Limestone block, 2478 acres, was a eplendid block, with good agricultural land in it, and 250 acres in it which was the garden of Glenmark. It was well adapted for sheep-breeding at the present time and grain growing. He valued . that block at £5 10s, which was likely to be realised for it. The Deans block, detached, had 8000 acres, which was pastoral land, and could be cut up in 1000 or 2000 acre blocks, and some of it could be cultivated with profit. The only fault he had to find was that it was not so well watered. It was worth £3 10s per acre, equal to a wool rental of a sheep per acre. If it was cultivated it would about cany two sheep to the acre. Cattle Peaks, 2888 acres, was one of the nicest parts of Glenmark; it was well watered, rolling downs country, and well roaded. It could bo sold by itself in a block. He valued it at £5 5s per acre. The Motanau Black Hill, of 8000 acres, was well watered and nice sheep country, capable of improvement for surface sowing, and so healthy for sheep nothing would beat it. It was tussocked, but not too thickly, and allowed the other grasses to come. He valued this at £3 per acre. There were no noxious weeds, but a little Yorkshire fog. It was untrue that Glenmark was unduly covered with hair grass. It was well grassed. Scargill, 3300 acres, he valued at £4 10s per acre. At present it carried a sheep to the acre easily, and would all produce the best of crops. Without- the improvements on the homestead block he valued the land at £6 per acre. . It was well watered. Spurtlton, 4000 acres, was very nice, all pretty well flat, with some rolling downs, and was equal in value to some other parts for agricultural purposes, with some creeks in it. It had a nice aspect at the head of the Valley, and was in very j good English grass in excellent order. This block he valued at £6, which was a payable price for sale or rental. The north end of the Omihi, 5000 acres, had some fine agrii cultural land, which he valued at £5 2s. The tussock and native grass here was very good. Between Quarry range and Omihi there were 2000 acres" suitable for turnips and rape, about grassed, yielding about 25 to 30 bushols. It was worth £4 5s per acre. No part of Glenmark lias a bleak or bad place on it. Had been thoroughly all over I the estate. The balance of the estate, 16.107 acres, had many good pieces in it, and all of it was grand sheep country. This he valued at £3 per acre. Glenmark was well roaded, with at least sixtythree miles of macadamised roads and suitable to get well into the estate. Had seen the Glenmark sheep, which compared very well with others in the district. Being in large mobs there were some light ones among them. The estate was not overstocked, and had enough grass to keep the sheep in good order. It would carry a sheep to the acre all the year round. The hills would take surface sowing well, and it would carry more sheep. He had dealt witli the estate as pastoral and arable land, and placed its selling value at £4 8s 8d per acre. Valued fences £40 per mile, and the bridges were all necessary and in good "'EoVlr Cres-vw ell—He was over the property a month ago for three days from daylight to dark. The Deans block* was not so well watered, but in 1000 acre blocks there should be no difficulty in getting water. He sold 2200 a-re-5 near the Deans block, but it was not so good as Deans, at £1 17s 6d. It carried two sheep to three acres. M. S. Brown stated, with Mr WynnWilliams, they were solicitors to Mr G. H. Moore, and had effected several sales of Glenmark properties. On the pastoral land 325 acres of the Limestone had been sold at £6 6s per acre; 248 acre? at £6 6s per acre, i-r.d they now had offers for Omihi agricultural land, 368 acres, at £13 per acre; for 142 acres, £12; for 118 acres the price of £13 13s had been paid. They had an offer for Cattle Peaks, of 2488 acres, at £9000 cash, which had been declined. An offer hud been made for Black Hills, 8000 acres, at £3 3s per acre, on terms of which 15 or /.0 per cent, was cash, and the balance bearing interest of 5 per cent. They were also .negotiating for sales of the Deans, for which Uiev were asking £4 4s per acre. To Mr Cifsswell —Tha limestone land was 15 per rent, cush and 5 pec cent, interest on balance

John Martin, manager at Glenmark, who had been on the station thirty years, said he had heard M"r Earshman's evidence, and endorsed his valuations with a full knowledge of the country. He said a fair amount to allow for the fences was from Is 6d to 2s 6d pei- acre, and it would be a fair amount to allow an average 2s per acre on all but the homestead fences, llie estate was served to all the blocks by main roads properly made for pubic us - The pasturage of the estate was in good order, but this year the drought had aiiected the whole country. There was a little barley grass on sheep camps, but not more than four or five acres .of it in the w!h«le run. The sheep returned to the Government and shorn were— Sheep. Shorn. 181-2 ... 74,000 ... 73,000 lcos ... 70,CKV ... 69,600 1894 ... 80,000 ... 78,900 1895 ... 78.000 ... 76.978 1896' . . 72,000 ... 71,437 1897 ... 78,000 ... 77,468 1898 ... 82,050 ... — He put in the receipts for rates paid under the SUiik Act. Including lambs, they some times had 105,000 and 106,000 head of sheep. Ihis year they had 106,159 sheep and lambs. There were new about 76,000 sheep on the run. This year 31,136 sheep had been sold from thee a tote. The wool taken away from the station last year was 1333 bales, and this year 1650* bales. For 1892, 1286 bales; 1893, 1265 bales; 1894, 1374 bales; 1695, 1306 bales; 1896, 1333 bales; and 1897, 1650 bales were sent away. Unless the sheep had been well provided for there could not have been such a quantity of wool. Eacli year about 8000 fat sheep were sold in the best uf condition. The increases were— 1892, 22,341 lambs; 189,5, 26,155; 1894, 24,700; 1895, 25,372; ltidb, 26,242; 1897, 28,591. This year there was 110 per cent. Increase in some of the flocks, and a total average of 90 per cent. The usual average on the station was 80 per cent. Mr W. B. ClarKsoo. v.as a large purchaser from tue station.

To Mr Cmswell— Some new roads might be required in the event of the land being cut up for teti lement. He had noticed hair grass or yarra in large patches. 'Ihe wool sold at various prices. It averaged about 8d lb la3t year in England To Air*Weston—The wool was of good quality, but it leached a rather low market. The English grass had been laid down for six to ten years. The Court here adjourned till 9.30 a.m. to day.