SOUTH OTAGO NOTES

Evening Star, Issue 23527, 16 March 1940, Page 11

SOUTH OTAGO NOTES

[From Our Correspondent] MILTON COURT. The monthly sitting of Milton Magistrate’s Court was held at the conclusion of the sitting of the Assessment Court, and was of short duration. Mr .H. J. Dixon; S.M., presided. > , The Otago Electric Power Board (Mr D. J. Sumpter) claimed £5 16s 3d from Robert Ghas. King (Waitati).—Judgment was given for the amount, with 15s court costs and 15s; fid solicitor’s fee. ' ~ Otago Power Board v. H. Weir (BalcluthaX' claimed, £3 10s' 6d —Judgment for arpount.lwith jßs court costs,. Iss'6d solicitor’s fee/' . . « . The Welfare.. Department proceeded against William Cecil Harvey (Invercargill) for failure to provide maintenance for his wife.—Constable P. Swan said that defendant was - making no effort to comply with the'order, and the arrears on February 16 totalled £BS ss. Defendant was earning £4 17s 4d a week, and since the summons had been served nothing had been' paid. His wife was an out-patient of Ashburton Hospital, and was unable to do anything for herself. When told this, defendant appeared to take little notice and evidently did not realise his responsibility.—Defendant was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment in Dunedin gaol, to be released on payment.of amount due. i , ASSESSMENT COURT. A sitting of the. Assessment Court was held at Milton on Friday to hear objections to the recent valuations made by Mr D. Croll, the valuer for the Borough Council. The court was presided over by Mr H. T, Dixon, S.M.

Fifty-seven objections had been lodged; but after consultation with the valuer several of these were withdrawn, while others were struck out owing to the non-appearance of the objectors. As a result, the number yvas considerably reduced, and what promised to be a lengthy sitting was cut down to about three hours.

. During the course of proceedings, the valuer said he had based his rental values by striking an average over the number of houses of the same capital value. Some were bringing bigger rente than others, and the most equitable way he had .considered was tp take an average. , It was , pointed out by counsel .appearing for objectors that this was not , equitable j as. locality had to be taken into consideration. ... i Fdr'Wni. Moore,-Mr (R. M. Rutherford objected tp; an annual• value l of £2o9.—Reduced to £164. Sarah Ann Hamilton and E. J.' Murphy (Mr Rutherford) objected to the annual value, of £37.-rJßeduced-.to £27. Mr G. H. Thomson, who appeared for a number of objectors, said values were ,not justified on being based on.rentals received. Rents could not, under the Fair Rents Act, -be increased. , Basic rents were fixed. The valuer had made an effort to'strike a' basic rate, but in some cases this was not justified. Estate D.’ M‘Laren (Mr Thomson) objected to value of £s2.—Reduced to £42. • ; ' ! ■ Estate Mrs Mary Brown (Mr Thomson) objected to £4s.—Reduced to £33, Estate Mary M'Laren (Mr Thomson)objected to £3l.—Reduced to £29. John M'Lean (Mr Thomson) objected to annual value of £47.—Reduced to £42. John Wright (Mr Thomson) objected to the valuation of £3l on a fiveroomed house and kitchenette.—Value “sustained. ' ... , , ... , Jessie 0. Fisher, (Mr Thomson) objected to the value of £29 for a fiveroomed house, scullery, and outbuildings.—Valuation sustained. The: valuations of Katherine C. Curran, (£42) and A., Sharp (£47) were sustained. William T. Pringle objected to valuation of £49 for four rooms and outbuildings.—Reduced to £47v based on rent objector was getting for 12 months.

John Walsh objected to the valuation of £43 on his Burn street property on the ground that it was the same as an

adjoining property which he considered of higher value than his.—Reduced to £4O, '

Mr D; J. Sumpter, for, Hitchon’s Ltd., said he accepted the capital value but not the rental value of £lB9. Last valuation this was £l2O, or 6 per cent, of the capital value, whereas the new valuation worked out at 10 per cent.-—: Mr Dixon said there had been a big increase, and reduced the valuation to £l5O. The valuation of Francis- William Foote was reduced from £37 to £3l. and that of Agnes M. Moyes from £44 to £42. Mr Sumpter represented the objectors. , . Catherine Maloney objected to the valuation of £27 on her property, which had been increased by £l2 from the last valuation three years ago.—Reduced to £23., D. C. Mills objected to the value of £42 on his house of six rooms and outbuildings.—Reduced to £36. ■ Peter. Small objected to the value of £27 for a three-roomed • house with no 'conveniences. He had, had the place let at 10s a week prior to living in it. —Reduced to £2l.