WESTPORT NOTES.

Grey River Argus, 31 May 1922, Page 2

WESTPORT NOTES.

(Our Own Correspondent.) In the absence of Air T. Ryan on Monday night, Mr J. Kilkenny occupied the chair at the fortnightly meeting of tho North Beach Surf Club. Speaking of the chances of the various candidates for the O’Conjior Home <f Popular Girl” Competition, a member of the above club reckons Miss Alary Ryan ought to win it because she’s got the “dough’’ behind her. I am informed that a number of ladv Rugby enthusiasts proceeded to Sergenut’s Bill on Sunday, per boot, to witness the football match. The Assessment Court representatives hold a sitting in Quartzopolis to-morrow (Thursday). The auriferous land in tho said locality -will probably afford ample, excuse for the Dench to uphold excessive valuations! The Admiralty collier Biloela, sails from West port this week for Australia with 5000 tons of coal for the Navy. SITTING OF ASSESSMENT COURT. At the- sitting of the Assessment Court held in the Courthouse at Westport on Monday morning the following ■were on the Bench: Mr A'. G. Day (president of the Court), Air V. C. M irfin (Government Assessor); and Mr N. 11. Alackic (representing the Valuation Department). The following appeared on behalf of objectors: Alessrs AY. T. fcleo, J. Rad- ! ford, 11. Lovell, J. J. Alolony, 11. J. 1 Jenkins and E. R. Reeves. 1 Before the Bench called upon individual objectors, Mr Lovell said he had J been instructed by the ratepayers of the Borough of Westport to state that the valuations on the whole were 30 to 40 per cent, above their true value. ' Air Alaekie, begging to interrupt, said : if Air Lovell "was going to raise the subject of revaluation of the borough as ; a whole, he. would oppose if. He would ■ speak later on the subject of valuation, and for the present asked for th<‘ valuations to be sustained. AVhere a reduction had been made his idea ■was to carry out uniformity. ■ After conferring, (lie Bench announced that the valuation ■would be sustained. Air Lovell said if tho Court would permit, he 'would carry out the ratepayers’ request by calling three wit- ; nesses to substantiate his contention that vain: tions were excessive and uureasona ble. The Bench replied that they had no power to grant a revaluation. ; Air .1. J. Alolony, with the permission •of th' 1 Court, said lie wished to sup port Air Lovell. There were a great • number of objectors who hud not appeared, but that should not prejudice i those who wished to have their cases considered. It was frit very strongly : here, that the valuation taken in 1910 • did no! hold to-day. Those for whom : he was appearing, had had their valua- : tions very considerably increased. The ' Government’s idea was increased taxa- : tion. . : To this the Bench raised, an objec-

I ('••ntliiiilng, Mr Molony said lie . thought it was wrong that a person ! I should be taxed on value that he did ; not itossess. lie thought repiesentation j should be made io the Government to have a revaluation made. Those who had not appeared were dead to their own interests. The Bench: Those who have not objected are evidently satisfied with the 1 value placed on their property. Mr Alolony: Many of those who have, not raised objection did not do so because they thought it hopeless. He further asked the Court to consider uniformity in its assessment. Tho Bench: We are not here to do that.

In the course of further pleading (on behalf of the long-suffering public) Mr Lovell said he proposed to call three ■witnesses to substantiate his contention that the values were excessive, but it appeared to him, from the attitude taken up by the Bench, it was worthThe Bench replied in the affirmative. The foregoing bears out the prediction made in this column in Alonday morning’s ‘ ‘ Argus. ’ ’ Following upon the foregoing account of preliminary court proceedings, a number of objectors appeared in person to protest against high values. Among them ■were some who failed to get satisfaction from their interview with Air Mackie, prior to the sitting of the Court. In a* few' cases reductions ranging from £lO to £25 were made, but these only after labouring efforts had been made on the part of the applicant, some of whom went to the trouble of calling witnesses in support of their protest. Mr Patterson, in giving the Bench an indication of present values in a certain locality, told the Court that a vacant section was there for anyone who liked to take it. It had been offered to him for nothing, but he declined to accept it. Sales of properties in the vicinity of localities where excessive valuation was alleged also failed to have any influence upon the Bench. We cannot, therefore, give “Argus” readers anything more worth knowing on the doings of the Assessment Court, beyond the fact, as already stated, that very few received a reduction —and that only a matter of a few paltry pounds—after much labour on the part of tho objector. The following will give an indication of the unsympathetic attitude taken up by tho Bench towards the objector:— Mr Lovell appealed on behalf of the owner of a certain piece of property recently purchased for £3OO. An objection was made to the Government valuation on the said property on the grounds of the sale value (£300). The Bench replied that circumstances of the sale w*efe not before tho Court. They were that property had

been thrown away in AVestport, but the sale price did not affect values Two properties, said the President ol the Court, side by side may bring quite a- different price. There was no cvi donee before the Court to make a com parison! Noting the last remark, read ers of the “Argus” will recognise what a farce the Assessment Court sittin.c has boon in AVctport as far as objecto;arc concerned,