TEE PROPERTY TAX CRUSADE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 8819, 14 June 1889, Page 5

TEE PROPERTY TAX CRUSADE.

AN INTERESTING *CASE.

[Peb Peebs Association. J

NAPIER, Junk 13. A case of unusual interest woe heard before the Resident Magistrate to-day in connection with the Property tax crusade which was recently undertaken. The Department, being dissatisfied with the Assessor's valuations, appointed a Committee of revisers, whose names have been kept a profound secret. They raised the valuation considerably, and the Commissioner accepted their values in the Hawke's Bay and Waipawa Counties, and sought to maintain them before the Boards of Reviewers with more or less success. But the same satisfaction was not apparently felt in the Fatangata County, for after the Reviewers nad finished special valuers were sent over a number of large runs, and considerable increases were made, even on the Revisers’ valuations. Among the properties considered most undervalued were those of Mr Alex. M'Hardy, assessed at Sga an acre, and MrO. J. Nairns, which the Revisers passed to £l3 an acre, both being large hilly runs. The Department at first accepted these valuations, bat the Commissioner lodged an objection before the Board of Reviewers, and sought to have Mr Nairn’s raised to M an acre, or from .£BI,OOO to £IIOB,OOO, and Mr M'Hardy’a jgdi 10s an acre, or from £173,000 to £1115,000. Mr M'Hardy fought against the increase, and his assessment was increased to £186,000 only. Mr Naimgave in and accepted the higher valuation. The sequel was heard to-day, when Mr Nairn was prosecuted under Clause 113 for making a false return relative to his property. For the defence it was stated that Mr Naim’s manager, since dead, had made out the return, and Mr Nairn signed it without examining, but that though he might be liable for negligence or carelessness under Clause 116 of the Act, he was nob liable to the crushing penalties provided in Clause 113. Mr Naim admitted that the run was undervalued at £2210s an acre, but said he was unaware of that until his attention was called to it by the Deputy Commissioner a few days ago. He thought it had been returned at £l3 an acre, which he considered a fair value. He was invited to send an amended return, but declined to do so unless Mr Croatia agreed to accept the amended valuation, which he had no power to do. Mr Naim, as stated, then accepted the Commissioner’s valuation of £l4 an acre. Two legal points were also raised for the defence, that the notices provided in Clauses 36 and 61 were not given, and the Resident Magistrate reserved his decision until Saturday. If the case goes against Mr Nairn, the least fine which can he imposed will be £1335.