PROPERTY ASSESSMENT COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume I, Issue 96, 16 March 1881, Page 3

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT COURT.

Thursday, 10th March. (Before His Honor Judge Wray.) HAWERA TOWN BOARD.

John Cole objected to the valuation (£23 10s.) on section 16, block XIIL, Regent street, as excessive. He had been rated at £10 more than on the previous year, although no improvements whatever bad been made. Mr. Cole instituted comparisons between the valuation on his property, and those belonging to Messrs. Climie and J. Twigg. As he could not, however, state the different amounts, the court did not think his objections proved very much/ After hearing the evidence of Messrs. Wanklyn and Audersou, the eecretaiy and valuator respectively to the board, a reduction was made from £23 10s. to £20 16s.

E. Pulford objected to the amount (£6O) for which he was rated for the leases of sections 1, 2, and 7, on the Town Board Reserve, near the Poet Office. He was paying rent to the board in advance, but had not received any benefit, as he had not put up any buildings. He suggested that the rate should not exceed £20 for the first year. There was no appearance, and the case was struck out; but Mr. Pulford soon afterwards made an explanation, and the court consented to listen to his objections when the other business was dealt with. Mr. Pulford stated that he had given a prospective value for the sections, believing th:tt all the traffic to and from the railway would go through Priuceß street. Since then} however, a new street had been opened up, which would tend to divert the traffic, and consequently have a tendency to lessen the value of the sections. The court stated that the motives of a purchaser could not be considered. The diverting of the traffic might form the grounds of an objection the following year, but it could hardly be held to do so as yet, because the trains were not running.. The Town Board might take the circumstances into consideration, but the court could not. The valuation would, therefore, be upheld.

HAWERA ROAD BOARD.

Thomas Whelan objected to being rated at £10 per annum for allotments GO and 61 (half-acre sections in Bamiord's paddock). There was no building upon the land, and the objector stated that he could not get £63 per annum rent for it. Mr. Bate (secretary and valuator to the board) consented to reduce the amount to £2, and the court gave judgment accordingly*

Peter Brophy objected to valuation (£3O) on allotments 82 and 83 (Bamiord's paddock) as being excf-ss.ve, compared with other properties in the neighborhood. The objector stated that Mr. G. Tait had three acres alongside, and was only rated at £20; whilst he had only three-quarters of an acre, aud was rated at £30. ' Mr. Bate pointed out that Mr. Brophy had a better house ; but the objeotor stated that his house was not lined inside, whilst Mr. Tail's was. Mr. Bate consented to a reduction to £20, and judgment was given accordingly.

A. Mair stated that he was not the owner of the property for wh eh he was rated, and wished the name of J. C. Hill, Normanby, substituted, as the objector believed the property belonged to him. Mr. Mair was not in court, when the case was called, aud it was in consequence struck out.

' C. H. McCtjtchan, sen., objected to the valuation (4-G7 11s.) on allotments 90, 01, and 9*2, being portions of section 182 (Bamiord's paddock) ; and also to the valuation on sections 36 and 43, block XIIL, Ngaire, as excessive. The bush land would be wholly unproductive tin til it was burnt, grassed, and fenced. The objector stated that he was not the owner or occupier of the quantity of land assessed against him, and his valuation was too high, in comparison with other properties on the valuation list. He instanced the valuation on open lands, such as Mr. Livingston's land at Ohawe, in support of his objection to the valuation.

Mr. Bate pointed out that Mr. Livingston bad consented to be rated for Ohawe, although he was not ther owner of many of the sections. The owners could occupy the land at any time.

Til? court stated that it would have been 'quite competent for Mr. McCutohan to have made an objection to the valuation 6n Mr. ' Livingston's property, if he thought proper ;• but it was hardly fair to make comparisons. The circumstances were entirely different. Mr. McCutchan, in answer to the Court, stated that he paid £5 10s and £G Is per acre respectively for some of the land. He would hand the land over to any person for what it cost him. He had made a fool of himself, by giving such a high price for the land, but so had many others. It was an error of judgment, and the price paid at auction could not be considered a fair criterion of the value of. the land at p reBent.

Mr. Bate said that he would rectify the error in the area, and would consent to a reduotion to 8s per acre. la -answer to Mr. McCutchan, Mr. Bate

stated that he had not been over all the land, but had been on the portion near Robson's mill. He had based his valuation, to a great extent, upon the prices realised at the late land sales, as he considered it a fair indication of the market value of land. Some of it sold for £7 10s per acre. The Court thought it was hardly fair to make a valuation on that basis.

Mr. McCutchan believed that the land would, not now fetch £3 an acre. Land near it, of as good quality, was sold at the last sale for £2 an acre.

In answer to the Court, Mr. Bate said he could not see his way to make any reduction. In answer to Mr. McCutchan, he stated that he did not know why he had omitted from the Valuation Roll five others on the same block — nann ly, Jas. Robson, section 327, 80 acres ; C. H. Arden, section 11, 25 acres ; J. Pratt, section 41, 56 acres ; D. Anderson, section 23, 56 acres; P. O'Connor, section 31, 130 acres ; S. Gray, section 3, 58 acres. After hearing some further evidence, and the statements of the objector, the Court stated that it did not consider 3s an acre excessive, and would not feel justified in making any further reduction. Of course, the error in the area would be rectified.

Chas. Quin objected to being rated for sections 29, 31, and 33, block X., Ngaire, as he was neither the owner nor occupier, and had left the name and address of the person liable to be rated at the Road Board Office. The objector stated that sections 6 and 7, block XIV., and sections 12 and 21, block XIII., Ngaire, were held on deferred payment by his childred, who are both minors. The land is all bush, and is neither grassed nor fenced. A considerable area of the bush had been felled, but it had been prematurely burnt, and was therefore in an unfit state to seed down for another season. Section 7 had been run up by a man named Chard to £b 7s, " for either spite or fun, knowing that the purchasers at the back could not do well without it." The section had been sold much too dear : it would not be worth the present valuation if it was laid down in grass. On these grounds, Mr. Quin objected to the valuation on behalf of his children.

Mr. Bute said he would consent to a reduction being made.

The Court stated that no copy of the objection had been sent in, but as the Board was prepared to make a reduction, that point would be waived.

Mr. Quin stated, in answer to Mr. Bate, that he had transferred section 31 to C. Bremmn, but the deed had not been handed over. Mr. Brennan had paid i'3o, and the remainder was lent on mortgage at 11 per cent. The man was in possession, and working upon the section. He had agreed to pay all the rates. — The objection was allowed.

Section 29 was leased to T. Hawke, with the right to purchase ; and section 33 to C. Dill, under similar conditions.

Mr. Bate pouited. out that the deeds in the Registry Office were in Mr. Quin's name.

The Court stated that another man's name could not be inserted, unless notice hnd be<n given to him of such intention. The objections could not be allowed.

Mr. Bate said he would endeavor to collect the rates from the occupiers.

Mr. Quin urged that, as his children were minors, they could not be held liable for rates.

The Court — Do you mean to say that they are not liable for rates ? If they are not, they are not able to hold land.

Mr. Quiu — They are over 18, and under 21, years of age, aud can hold deferred payment sections under the Land Act ; but being minors, I do not consider they were liable to pay rates.

The Court — I cannot entertain the objection.

In answer to Mr. Quin, Mr. Bate stated he did not understand how he came to make the error in the valuation of section 7, but would consent to a reduction f i om ss. to 2s. Gd. per acre.

Mr. Quin pointed out that Mr. England's section, containing 125 acres, aud Mr. J. Twigg's, 71 acres, were valued at £15 and i'lo respectively, although they were sold at the same price as his land.

The Court did not see the use in any further objections, after the valuator had consented to a reduction, and acknowledged his error.

Mr. Quin objected to the valuation (£ 15) on section 12, containing 119 acres. " It is worth nothing."

The Court — Yet you gave £2 14s. an acre for it. You are rated at only 2s. 6d., which is really below the mininaum allowed by the Act.

Mr. Bate agreed to reduce to 2s. That would be valuing the land at only £2 an acre.

Mr. Qnin pointed out that the interest and compound interest would have to be computed on the deferred payments, and the Court agreed with him.

Mr. Quin (to Mr. Bate) — Were you over the land ?

Mr. Bate — No : I stated in Mr. McCutchan's ciise that I valued the land according to the price realised at auction.

Mr. Quin — Did any ol the members of the Hawera Road Board tell you to stick it on to me for trying to sever the district ? Mr. Bate — None of the Hawera members tried to influence me, nor would I be influenced bj' them, if they had done so.

Mr. Quin — You are secretary to the Hawera Road Board. Were you in the room when I was ordered out ?

Mr. Bate — Everybody is ordered out when the Board goes into committee.

Mr. Quin — What sort of thimble-rigging goes on there ?

The Court — I do not see what we have to do with all ibis.

Mr. Quin — I want to show the reason for rating me so high.

The Court — Oh!, nonsense, talk so childishly.

Mr. Bate — I object to motives being attributed to me in this way, and to its being said that I was influenced in fixing any valuation by the Board or anybody else.

The Court — I cannon listen for a momeut to any such objections. It is really astonishiug how worthless land becomes, as soon as it has to be rate'cl.

Mr. Southey was called by the objector. He stated that none of the standing bush in the Ngaire district was worth more than £2 an acre. He considered it was all too heavily rated.

The Court — If a man gives £5 an acre for laud, it is no good for him to come afterwards *to me, and tell me it isn't worth £3 an acre.

Mr. Bate (to Mr. Southey) — You've got some land at Mangawhero. How much

do jou pay as leutul to the Waste L.mds Board ?

Mr. Southey — We give 2s 6d or 3s; hut we give it for timber purposes. I would not think of giving that price for " cockatooing" purposes. You cannot run either sheep or cnttle on the land, and settlers cannot get anything out of it for at least two or three years.

The Court, after hearing some further evidence, pointed out that the valuation rate, in some instances, did not exceed half the price realised at auction. The Eating Act distinctly stated that the minimum should be 5 per cent, on the selling value, and yet some of the valuations were fixed below that standard. In the opinion of the Court, there was not much to complain about. But some reductions would he made. Section 12 would be reduced from £15 to £8 18s 6d ; section 21, froni .£l7 to JIO 12s ; and the clerical error in section 7 would be rectified, thus reducing the amount from .£32 5s to £17 7s 6d.

Mr. Qnin said he considered he was entitled to costs, seeing the faulty way in which the valuation lists had been made up. Mr. Southey had lost a day in coming to give evidence.

The Court— lt is not necessary to bring witnesses to rectify a clerical error. I shall make no order for costs. There were no other objections.