The Daily Telegraph TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1881.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 2996, 1 February 1881, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1881.

Thk proceedings of the Board of Reviewers under the Property Assessment Act were yesterday of a very comical character. The Reviewers were Messrs Robert Stuart, C. J. Nairn, and J. Lawrence. To Napier residents these names alone wree calculated to raise a laugh ,as three gentlemen less acquainted with the value and situation of town properties could hardly have been selected. We have no doubt that they j tried to do their duty, for which by-the-bye they receive no pay further than " liberal travelling expenses." To the credit of the assessors, be it said, there were not many objections, there being but thirty to the borough, and nineteen to tbe county assessments. The assessors had the advantage of having held the same appointments in 1879 under the Land Tax Act, which accounts for the few objections lodged this year. We know for a fact that in nearly all cases the valuation was put at twenty per cent under that which had been approved for the land tax. With this information before us some of the proceedings of the Board of Reviewers appeared simply incomprehensible. We will give a few examples of those cases, the recital of which has caused no little amusement. The first one we shall refer to is that of i property which was valued at £4,300. The owner objected to the valuation as highly excessive, and brought forward profeiiional evidence to show that his

estate »ao umy or tne value of £3,500. Most people would think tkat if tbe "expert's" valuation was a truer one than that of the assessor's the Board would exercised its di?c.etion, and judging between the two have given a decision in favor of one or the other. But no. The Board in its wisdom, and without further evidence, reduced the valuation to £2,100! Here is another example of justice and equity. A property in Hastings-street, let for £120 a year for twenty-one years, was valued at £1,680 according to the scale laid down by the Act, which is fourteen times the annual rental. An objection was made oh points in relation to th& lease, and the owner stated that the property was not worth more to him than £1400. The Board allowed the objection. Another property in another part of the towu was valued at £2,100, being let at £150 a year for seven years, of which four have expired. An objection was made on tbe ground that the rental included the price of the good-will of the bush-ess taken over by the tenant. The Board could not see the force of such an objection, and dismissed it. We shall now mention the case of Mr J. T. Tylee. His objection was the second on the list, and was called early in the day. His duties as Land Commissioner prevented him from being in attendance on the Board when his name was called, but on his arrival he was given to understand that when the other cases were disposed of his objection to the assessment of his property would be heard. On application, however, to the Board, he was told by the Board that to hear his case after he had failed to answer his name would be a most unheard of proceeding, and that it would be impossible. Mr Lascelles was also placed from professional duties in a similar position with regard to bis objections. The Board would listen to neither one nor the other. In contradistinction to this offhand settlement of objections, a case that should have been brought before the Wairoa Board of Reviewers was complacently heard by the Napier Board, and without any evidence whatever beyond the mere ipse dixit of the objector the valuation of his property was reduced by one-half. One more example, and we have done. The value of some property belonging to an absentee was objected to by the agent of the owner as excessive; the evidence of an " expert" was not demanded ; the valuation on one property was reduced from £1200 to £800, and on another from £1000 to £400, although adjoining unoccupied lands were valued, and not objected to at as high a rate as the absentee's. We believe that, with one or two exceptions, every objection was sustained. If the examples we have given exhibit the practice of Boards of Reviewers we see no utility in the appointment of assessors.