VALUES IN DISPUTE.

Dominion, 24 February 1913, Page 6

VALUES IN DISPUTE.

RECENT NATIVE LAND SALE.

THE FACTS STATED. . Publicity* has recently been given to a case in which a Maori Land Board approved a 6ale at «ElO per acre of land which was afterwards Valued at .£lB ss. per acre. When tho matter was tioned to tho Native Minister (tho Hon. W. H. Hemes) some days ago, ho pointed out that responsibility in such a case [rested with the Government Valuation Department, since tho boards were bound' by the Government valuation, though they. can, if necessary, call upon the Valuation Department to make a fresh valuation. Mr. Herrics has since obtained a report regarding the details of the particular case mentioned, and on Saturday ■ho made the following stateniout on tho subject:— "Tho land in question consists of 28 acres. Tho deed of salo to Mr. Beale was executed on October 16, 1911, and lodged with tho board on December 20. The Government valuation, dated 'January 11, and supplied by the Valuer-General on February 24, 19J2, gave the value of the land at Xll6, or Man acre. Mr. Beale proposed to give ,C2b7 for tho land, or about XlO an acre. This was JC6 en acre above the Government valuation, and the board.confirmed the transaction, subject to its being satisfied as to the payment of the purchase money to vendors. Subsequently, on April 18, the vendors signed another transfer to Mr. Lawler, the purchase money being .£525. On July 23 the Valuer-General supplied a certificate that in March, 1912, the land had been valued at .£525. Tho two applications came before the board- on September 18, 1912, and the board, having proof of the payment of the purchase money by Mr. Beale, .confirmed his transfer, as they had already undertaken to do, when a certain condition was fulfilled, on March 20. "The board, in my opinion, acted perfectly right. The . whole trouble and subsequent lawsuit-arose from the extraordinary discrepancy between the values given to this piece of land by two officers o{ the Valuation Department. Tho' laud in question,had no access to it, and was, it was alleged, subject to flood, and that was the reason given by. Mr. Wilson for the lowor value. Mr. Coutts apparently valued the land at what it was 'worth to. an adjoining owner. The whole matter was argued before Justice Sim, who refused to disturb the action of the board. The board acted perfectly legally, and confirmed a transaction that gavo the vendors six pounds an acre more than the then Government valuation, and the vendors were apparently us they accepted the ten pounds an acre."