ASSESSMENT COURT.

Marlborough Express, Volume XIV, Issue 1121, 2 April 1879, Page 7

ASSESSMENT COURT.

Blenheim, Monday, March 31. H. Mclnt : ro, Eeq, Judge.] PAUL V. SPRING CREEK ROAD BOARD, In this case, which was heard on the previous Tuesday, the Court now gave judgment:—Mr Paul objected that his land was unfairly assessed when compared with other sections in the same district, section 116 being assessed at £35 without fences or improvements. This written objection was certainly very short, and the Counsel for the Board had very properly raised the point that the objection was not made in the terms of the statute. The objection was not pressed at the time. In the opinion of the Court it was clear that it would be opposed to

every principle of f'rr;' L " t > allow.,.an, objection to an assessment to to ... . lere'y on the ground that the property was unfa,.. , ’ r when compared to othci properties in the district, for to go into the question of comparison would involve going into the nature and circm. stance of all the other properties, and aftei all, if_ this were done, it would probably result iu arriving at a fallacy. The Act had provided a simple means of how the property was to be assessed. Here, in Mr Paul’s case, the assessment had been fixed at 5 per cent on the selling value of the land in fee simple. By his own admission, Mr Paul was the purchaser and holder of 2,2C0 acres of freehold land, estimated as being worth £5 an acre, Mr Douslin, the valuer under the Land Tax Act, and a man of experience as to the value of land in this district, bad valued it at £12,380 including improvements, being at the rate of about £6 per acre. Now had Mr Paul’s appeal been against the whole valuation, the Court would have been of opinion that he had not made out his case, but as regarded one section (section I1G) which had been separately assessed, the Court considered he had made out a case for a reduction of the assessment. This section was assessed at £35. and Mr Douslin had stated in evidence, that in his opinion the section was much over-valued, and that £25 would be a fair value. Now this evidence had not been called in question in cross-examination or in any other way by Mr McNab (Counsel for the Board), and therefore the Court must take it for granted that Mr Douslin’s statement could not be rebutted. As far, therefore, as this section was concerned, Mr Paul had made out his case, and the Court would reduce the assessment on section 116 from £35 to £25, Mr McNab said the Court having taken LlO off section 116, he would ask that LIO be put on to the rest of the sections, which would still he within their value. The Court said it could not do that. Mr McNab ashed “ How about costs?” The Court declined to allow costs. WAIRAU RIVERS HOARD. Mr O’Sullivan asked the Court to make an order that the valuation of the Omaka Road Board District should be taken as that of the Lower Wairau Road Board District. The R.M. said he did not see how he could comply with the application. He did not S6e how he could make any order in the matter. The Act was silent about it. If the Rivers Board was in the same district as the Omaka Board District, it appeared that they might take the valuation of the Omaka Road District as the basis of the valuation for the Bivers Board District. The Court then rose.