ASSESSMENT COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2741, 8 April 1916, Page 15

ASSESSMENT COURT

CITY VALUES

WAKEFIELD STREET PROPERTY

A sitting of the Assessment Court was held in Wellington yesterday, Mr. W. G. Riddoll, S.M., presiding. In connection with City valuations, tha Government Assessor was Mr. H. E. Leigh toil, and the Local Body Assessor was Mr. T. Divan. Tho Valuation De. partment was represented by.--Alr. M. Myers as counsel, and Mr. P. N. Mar. tin (District Valuer). lhe first case taken was that of David B. Howden's property in Wakefield Streot— a property which had previous, ly been before the' Court, and had also formed the basis of -an. appeal to the Supreme Court. In consequence of tho judgment of the Chief Justice in tho fatter Court, the case Md to be reopened. Originally tho Assessment Court had dismissed the objection to tho value -of £22,050 (including an agreed upon value of improvements £12,000). Howden, proceeding under bection 31, then asked the Department to take oyer tho property at £21,045. Instead of taking over the property at this, price, the Valuer-General agreed to reduce to that amount, but fixed the unimproved value at £9592 and the value of improvements at £11,453. As the value of improvements had previously been agreed upon as £12,000, Howden objected to tlie alteration, and the Chief Justice hel.d that the onus was upon the Valuer-General of showin" that the agreed upon value of improve", meats (£12,000) was not necessarily the correct value. Mr. A. W. Blair yes. teuiay desired that the Department should open with evidence, or that at least lie should be allowed to call evideuce in rebuttal if the Department called an architect.

His Worship considered it was immaterial as to • whioh side opened. Mr. Myers said that if the other side forced him into the position of proving the Valuer-General's figures, lie (Mr. Myers) would show that the valuation was much too favourable to the respon. dent. He submitted that neither side was now bound by the agreement,' and it the \ aluer-General adopted the figures, jvhich la( l been fixed in connection with the reduction, tlien his immediate onus was discharged, and the objector was placed in his original posi--!V a 1 I " ust °P. en with Iy s evidence, i j Neave pointed out .that the S s6 n an . important bearing upon the Gas Company's case. A valuation or the plant and buildings had been agreed upon, and, if this valuation- were liow attacked, tho Gas Company would be put to a tremendous expense to call expert evidence in support of its case, tie suggested that in the first instance the company should be allowed to call its own engineer to show that the valuation of the property had been made and had been accepted by the Department. Then if the .Department attacked that valuation, tile company sliould be given an opportunity of calling further evidence of engineers and architects. His Worship considered this was a reasonable request. . ■ It was then decided to proceed with the hearing of the objection in Howden s case. His Worship, said the objector would be given every opportunity to placo his evidence before the Court, but lie must open. \ The parties having been heard, tlia Court decided that the Valuer-General's figures should stand. GAS COMPANY'S BLOCK. Neave then proceeded to place the Gas Company's objection before tho Court. It appeared that tho last valuation of the property was £104,000, made -x'rr' as o,vs of improvements £05,000, and unimproved valuu ;C49,000. Failing to obtain any reduction in the Assessment Court, tho company invoked .Section 81 of the Act and ofiered tho property to the Government at tho figure of £91,368. The.Government being unwilling to acquire the property, reduced the capital value to £91,368, but set the other figures down in the following proportion:—lmprove, ment.s £'18,587, unimproved value £42,781. The Gas Company made s\ further objection, contending that the value of improvements had been agreed upon at the figure of £55,000, and could not thcrcforo be reduced, and that- the wliolo of tho reduction should be upon the unimproved. value. After hearing the evidence of both sides, the Court sustaiued the Depart, mint's valuation.. • A" LAMBTON QUAY CASE. Mi-. .A, \V. Bln.ii' Host placed bsfoi-o i the Court the matter of the property of

Messrs. Skcrretfc and Wylie on Lamb* toil Quay. The Government valuation had been, capital <,£'12,150, unimproved £7150, and improvements £5000. Tlio objectors wanted the unimproved value reduced by £1100, and the capital value rcduced accordingly, but tlio Court had previously refused to make the reduction. The objectors subsequently invoiced Section 31 of the Act, and offorod tlio property to the 'Government at £11,050. Here again, the Valuer-Gen-eral reduced tho capital value rather than bo burdened with tho property, but fixed the unimproved value at 16293, reducing the value of buildings to £4757. It was in connection with this proportionate reduction that the objectors yesterday approached tho Court. '

As in tlio other cases, the Court sustained tlw Valuer-General's assessment. The President of the Court remarked that tliey were satisfied t'hat the unimproved value was £6203, but they wero also satisfied. that the buildings were worth £5000. They could uot meet the situation, as they had no power to in crease the capital value.

Other cases wero adjourned until Friday next.