ASSESSMENT COURT.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10060, 11 June 1898, Page 10

ASSESSMENT COURT.

RANGIORA

FninAY, Jcke 10. (Before H. XV. Biehop, Esq.) The adjourned meeting of the Assessment Court, for the purpose of hearing learned counsel in the case of the assessment 01 the OJenmark Estate, took place yesterday at the S.M. Court. The evidence in the matter had been taken at Rangioru,, and, by arrangement, the hearing of the argument was removed to Christ church.

iir Wi-fcUi.i, -.vU'.j j.iiu _>i r Brown, k the objector. For the Department, Mr Cressiweli.

Mr O'Callaghan, the Superintendent Valuator, was also present. Mr Bishop said he was prepared to hear •Air Weston. There were, perhaps, points in the evidence to which Mr Weston might desire to refer. He would ask Mr Weston to put in a copy of the letter from Miss Moore which called iorth -« Overtoil's letter, as he wished to refer to it in bis judgment.

Mr Cresswell said he did not object to the letter per se, but as a matter of principle. He was aware of the contents of the letter. Mr Weston said he would read the letter to his Worship. It was to the effect that Mr Overton told her that Mr McMillan (who valued for the Land Settlement Board) told him after he had valued the property that he considered the property had been offered to the Government very cheap. This conversation Mr Overton " reported to Miss Moore. On oath Mr Overtoil denied that this statement made was before the valuation, and the worths imputed to Mr McMillan was not such as Miss Moore stated. Miss Moore also asked Mr Overton, who had been over the property, to give- evidence before the Assessment Court.

Mr Overtoil's reply was read, stating that he could not give the information which had been given to him by a friend in confideuce. As he had gone over the property a long time ago. he would not come forward in the Court to testify to the value. Mr Weston said that Miss Moore wished him to say to his Worship that the conversation between Mi McMillan and Mr Overton did take place, and after the valuation. Air Bishop said, according to Mr Earshman's evidence, the acreage of the blocks .was 63,588 and the Assessor's LL'ures were 63,588.

Mr Brown said 227 acres 2 roods had to come oil Mr Earsh man's figures. Mr Bishop said that this made the figures 63,361 acres a roods.

Mr Weston said that the case was an exceptional one. Hence the evidence had been somewhat lengthy. The land represented a large portion of the Waipara district, and ' had been the subject of correspondence between Mr Moore and the Government as to the. sale and purchase. It was, as his Worship knew, quite impossible for Mr Moore to appear, and hence the matter hod to be put forth by other parties. In 1896 Mr Mooro was a-pproached oy the Government as to the purchase of the land, and offered it, except the homestead of Glenmark, at £4 4s per acre. The reply •was that the property had been valued by two valuers', whose value was below the ju4 4s per acre, and the Land Purchase Board had done nothing in the matter This offer was, by letter from Mr Moore to the Land Purchase Board, kept open till November 12th, when id was withdrawn. They alleged that tho Government had persistently under-valued the property so that it? might come before the Court, and Mr Moore felt that it was his duty, in his own interest and that of tne colony, to object to the attempt made by tho Government to depreciate the property in the eyes of the public and in the judgment of the Court He would refer hia Worship to the great powers given to the valuators under the Land Tax Act,

because in view of the questions to be decided by his Worship it was necessary to consider the amount at which the property ■was valued for the land tax purposes. He called attention to the fact that the valuator ar\d the middlemen, together with the Supervising Valuator, were servants of the Government, and they went over the fields in quite a perfunctory manner. The figures these officials put down were laid before his Worship, and these figures were under t)he Act prima facie, made the values, though they might be intolerable and altogether incorrect. In fact, these gentlemen used their own sweet will as to fixing the values in the district over wliich they had sway. Mr McMillan, Mr Dick, Mr O'Callaghan, and Mr Knight were one liappy family, and were all in touch with each other. Taxation could be obtained fairly and could be obtained unrighteously, and the people when trampled on were perfectly right to take exception to the actJione of these officers, who wore armed with such large powers. fffce learned counsel then proceeded to criticise pretty strongly the officials of the Department in the Waipara district, pointIng out Knight had no experience of land values, and had done his work perfunctorily. Mr Dick and Mr O'Callaghan twere neither of them better fitted for the work. Hence the wide-spread disatisfaction in the district, as evidenced by the number of appeals coming before his Worship's Court. Now, coming to Glenmark. Mr O'Callaghan valued iti in 1891-2, and it was agreed between Mr Moore and himself that he should pub ft certain value on the Waikari, which amounted to £7 per acre. It was also agreed that the unimproved, value of Glenmark should be put at £4 10s per acre, Mr O'Callaglian recognising this as a fair value in 1892. At Rangiora, on the formci day, Mr O'Callaghan had said that thore were no circumstances existing to alter the value in 1898. Really the land at Waikari when sold exceeded the values Sut upon it by arrangement between [r Moore and Mr O'Cnllaghan. This being so, he . (Mr Weston) thought they were entitled to take Mr Moore's value ot the Glenmark land as a right oiio. Mr Weston then proceeded to criticise Mi Knight's method of valuing the Glenmark estate Mr Cresswell said if it would shorten proceedings, ho would be prepared to admit that Mr Knight's evidence.and valuations were both u/.ipliable. Mr Woston said that simply meant this, that the Department had to repudiate the work of Mr Knight, leaving only two ofti- \ cers instead of three to do the work. Mr had told them that he had not \pen over Glenmark for seven years, and wids unable to block off the 1/uid with ranging Values as to situation, soil, &c. All he could do was to value it for grazing purposes, and giVung it as his opinion that it would Cfvrry butV one sheep to the acre. After this Mr (TCalliWban said that Glenraark ehould be taken cue , into blocks and not sold as a whole. Hβ Ivid also told them that he did not know how ploughable lund there was in He asked his Worship what possible valula he could place on the evidence of Mr O'o-allaghan when he said that tlic land was fit for agricultural purposes. A statement which was contradicted, as also was tine assertion by Mr O'Callaghan that Waikam had turned out a failure, which was completely and entirely disproved by several witnesses. The pasture which had been denounced by Mr Knight was proved by Mr lJUvie to bo of good quality. The evidence oi\Mr Earshman, who was a competent authority as to value had been borne out hy acrlual sales, and also by Mr McMillan's evidence. The learned counsel then read Mr Earitiiman's j evidence commeutinji on the salient flints, j The average price Mr Earshman put <Sown At £4 8s 8d per acre. There were alsoV 63 miles of roads constructed with a view Vof serving the different settlements, and theae roads would be most valuable whether thJf land was purchased by the Government any one else. It had been part of the case for the Crown that the estate was overestimated in value as to sheep carrying facilities, but all- Earshman was very positive as to the good condition of the sheep on the estate. Mr Martin, the manager of the estate, corroborated Mr Earshtnan's values, and gave the fullest information as to the produce of wool, &c, and all round the value of produchon was not decreased at all from the former years. Mr O'Callaghan seemed to him to be a special pleader for Cheviot, and a special denunciator of Glenniark, but comparing the two-Cheviot being sold at £o 2s g<l per acre for family ™,wV?V? ° n ? M «*-he (Mi Weston) man and Mr M«tia both agreed SSnSn" jnark was worth ** fi «[ ~ r eoauaentery on tfe »gtt<, a e j qS?JJ£

ment anc} the valuers that last year and this had been the best that Glcnmark h*d had. Mr Carkson's evidence the excellent quality of the sheep from Glenmark. also compared the two properties of Cheviot and Glenmark, and came to the conclusion that the fair price pf the latter was £1 per acre more than the former. Mr McMillan's evidence must be regarded as that of a partisan, as he had the valuation of all the Government Departments, and must be regarded as leaving a leaniug toAvards those who employed him. Mr McMilJai and Mr Dick had spent fourteen days going over the property, and had cut up mc t-fUte into the block which iris Worship had seei, these blocks being different from those of -Mr Karshman, being more subdivided. Mr McMillan did not say that the land was overstocked, yet with Mr Martin's figures before him, as contained in the returns to the Stock Department, they had liuw 80,000 sLeep depasturing on Glenmark, so that Mr McMillan's system of valuation was altogether erroneous, and he (Mr Webtcti) would ask his Worship to discredit it, because the facts ol produce and of sales of land totally disproved his values. Reference was also made by Mr Weston to the evidence of Mr H. F. Gray, and then put in the schedule of the prices obtained for the laud sold by Mr Moore. If his Worship took Mi McMillan's ligures then the oDjector was entitled to have the valuation raised. The Government figures worked out to £4 Os 9d per acre for the acreage. But he would ask cis Worship not to take Mr McMillan's values because they were contradicted by sales made prior to and after the valuation. Learned counsel cited sales showing that in all cases the values given by Mr .Larshniau hiui been exceeded, and they had declined £9000 for 2488 acres, which was about £4 per acre. He said that it would be a cruel and unjust wrong ii the property of Mr Moore was held up to contempt and depreciation tliroughout the colony ou the mere ipse dixit of Air McMillan. The valuation hud been made with oue object, viz., to get that land for the Government at a less value than it was worth. The Uourt was intended to be used us a means of getting the depreciated value before the arbitrators, but 11 he (Mr Weston) knew his Worship he would not allow the Court to be so used.

' Mr Cresswell was not going to follow Mr j Weston all through the rainiticulions of his j address. It seemed to him to be quite inconsistent with the picture his learned friend had drawn of fche oiticers of the Department going about like marauders to rob the pro-perty-holders that Air Moore sought to have their valuations increased. There was not the slightest truth in the allegations made by Mr Weston against the Department. The onus of proof, lie submited, was on the other side to show that the valuation was too low. With regard to Mr Knight's valuation the Department did not support it on his lines, but they did so on proper lines such as the evidence of Mr O'Callaghan and Mr McMillan. As regarded the valuation made formerly by Mr O'Callaghan, that had been explained by the supervising valuer. As to Mr Earshman's, he was au interested man because ho had land in the neighbourhood of Glenmark. Besides he was not a competent valuer. . The quantity and quality of the sheep on Glenmark had, as was pointed out by his Worship, no appreciable effect upon the question before the Court. Mr Clarkson had been asked as to the value of the land, and had fixed it at £4 pe* acre. Mi McMillan was a man who had a high reputation throughout the colony as a land expert, and his instructions from the Land Purchase Board was to examine Glenmark and report to the Board as to what was its fair value. This he had done, and h& (Mr Cresswell) also wished to point out that Mr McMillan was his learned friend's witness though liis evidence did not come out so favourable as was expected. Mr McMillan's valuation, he wished to point out, included the Waikari land but excluded the Glenmark block. Now tho valuation of Mr McMillan was £20,000 less than the valuation made by the Department now objected to. He submitted that there was not one tittle of evidence which should induce his Worship to come to the conclusion that the estate was valued too low. As regarded the point made by his learned friend with reference to the sales, they could easily pick out the eyes of an estate which would realise fancy prices. Looking at the magnitude of the estate the sales had been small. Mr Moore had laid himself out to show that the value of the Department was too low, but he had not brought forward a single valuer outside Mr McMillan to come forward to support his objection. He could not do so, and he urged upon his Worship that this was a significant fact.

His Worship said he would have to cut up the valuation in the schedule very considerably, taking into consideration the sales which had been made and the circumstances under which they had been made. He would have to take out those portions of the valuations which from the evidence he came to the conclusion had either been over or undervalued.