COBDEN PROPERTY IN DISPUTE: PRICE FIXED AT £1010

Grey River Argus, 21 March 1947, Page 7

COBDEN PROPERTY IN DISPUTE: PRICE FIXED AT £1010

Following a retirement of three-quarters of an hour, a decision fixing the purchase price of a Cobden dwelling at £l,OlO, £l9O below the price sought by the vendor, was made at yesterday’s sitting of the Westland land Sales Committee at Greymouth.

The property was that situated at the corner of Cardwell and Ward Streets, Cobden, the vendor being R. B. Low, and the purchaser G. E. Palmer. Mr. M. Wallace presided, and associated with him were Messrs J. W. Greenslade and J. Mulcare. , , Mr. G. F. Shallcrass was the valuator for the vendor, and Mr. I. PMcMillan for the Crown. Opening the case for the Crown, Mr. W. Bell (Commissioner of Crown Lands) said the property had changed hands in 1939 for £lOO, had appeared on the Valuation Roll in 1941 at £6OB and was now declared as on December 15, 1942, at £915. Mr. McMillan said he had inspected the property on March 3, 194 c. He admitted the property had recently been painted, and, when asked what allowance he had made to cover this, said he had made his allowance on the grounds that

"maintenance over a previous period has been expanded, and by repainting, such maintenance is merely brought up to date.

Mr Bell said he could not undeistand the marked difference of the respective valuations of the Crown and the vendor’s value. Especially in the case of the valuation of the verandah which Mr Shallcrass had assessed at £5O, he thought since the Crown had valued the same verandah at £3, there was an unusually large difference. , , . M*’ Shallcrass: Il would be impossible to buy half the iron for £3. The structure could not be built to-day for such a sum. Commenting on statements made in evidence by Mr. McMillan concerning the sales of properties which had not gone to a hearing, and in particular concerning his, _ (Mr. McMillan’s), personal valuation of _ a case not taken to hearing, Mr. Jamieson objected to the evidence and declared that such evidence should not be taken or considered by the committee. Mr. Jamieson said the Crown valuator should not be allowed to state his personal views, and that if such were allowed, they should be discounted by the committee. Cross-examining the Crown valuator, Mr. Jamieson asked why the adjoining section to that at present under question had been sold by him in June 1943, for £l2O, and to-day the section under discussion which was a corner section, while the former was not, had been valued by him at only £7O when, as in the former case, the area of the property was 20 perches. Asked by Mr Bell whether he had adopted the sale of the McMillan section as a basis on which to make his valuations Mr Shallcrass he had, and that he considered the section under discussion to be a bettei one than that to which he had referred. Mr Bell asked if he (Mr Shallcrass) knew anything of the section immediately across the road from., the one under discussion. Mr Shallcrass replied that that property could not be used as a comparison since the sale had not ■gone to a hearing. Mr Bell pointed out that the section had been valued at £B5 when the property was sold. Referring to the Crown valuations, Mr. Jamieson said lie knew that Mr. E.. A. Warnes had been asked to make a valuation of the property in question, but that now the case was at hearing the Crown had chosen to present another and lower valuation. “If the Crown is financially able to employ two, or even a dozen valuators, those valuations should be submitted to the committee,” said Mr. Jamieson.

Mr. Bell replied that he saw no reason why he should be compelled to present"the valuation by Warnes. The Crown, he said, could please itself. If opposing counsel made a statement which was merely hearsay evidence, the committee was not obliged to accept it. The Crown could not be compelled to submit the evidence referred to by Mr. Jamieson. Mr. Warnes had not been officially employed by the Crown, who, as soon as it had known that Mr. Warnes had already made a valuation for the vendor, sought to have another valuation made. Mr. Jamieson said the Crown was not entitled to make several valuations, later to choose the lowest figure for presentation to the committee The fact remained that the Crown was witholding evidence which could assist the committee in its deliberations. Mr. Warnes had computed his valuation at £ll7B, which was £42 short of the price sought by the vendor. The Crown, however, chose to present its second valuation of £915 to the committee. The court adjourned in committee to discuss the question of Mr. Warne’s valuation, returning threequarters of an hour latei with the decision as stated.