ASSESSMENT COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5395, 3 March 1879, Page 5

ASSESSMENT COURT.

Po:;so:;ey Highway District. —R. C. Barstow, Esq., Judge of Assessment Courts, sat at the Ponsonby Hall on Saturday, to hear objections to the valuation of properties in the Ponsonby district. Mr. W. Thome (Chairman of the Hoard) and Mr. S. E. Hughes (clerk, collector, anil valuer) represented the Board, and Mr. J. B. Russell attended as solicitor for the Board. Mr. Lodge was present as clerk of the Court. Mr. Hughes attested the valuation list. There were upwards of 49 objections lodged, but thero was only a comparatively small attendance pf ratepayers, and several who were present said it was not generally known throughout tho district that the -Court would sit that dav, and that they themselves only learned of tho sitting accidentally. His Honor, however, pointed out that the usual notice had been given ia the papers on the 7th of February, and recommended them to read their papers more attentively. The first objection heard was that of William Bacon, who alleged that he was excessively valued for two properties. He deposed that in one instance where he was valued at 10a a-week, he was only receiving 8s a-week rent. That, was the most he could got, and he was very glad to receive even that, as no money had ever been Bpent on the street in whioh the property was situated. The valuation in this instance was reduced from £20 10b to £16 10s. The second property was also valued at £20 10a, but he was only receiving 7s a-week rent for it. From the statement of the valuer it appeared this section was valued as two properties, as there was a dividing fence

* between the vacant position and that on which a the houso stood, but according to the evidence fc of the objector it was only one property, and 1 was let as such. He was cross-examined by Mr. Russell at considerable length. Tho j valuer deposed that the properties were separate, and tho portion 011 which the house ~ waa would let. He valued the house at 10s aP week, and the vacant land lie valued at 25s a foot. A reduction was made in the house from f £20 10s to £14 10s, and the second one from £10 to £7. —An objection by James Bloomfield was i made. His valuation was reduced by consent a from £32 to £26.— T. J. Bainbridge, .who objected to his valuation at £22 10s as excessive, appear, and there was no reduction made. —Neil Campbell, by his attorney, W. H. Jones, * appealed on the ground that he was not the owner of the property assessed. He did not ap- ? pear, and the list was ordered to stand.—John 3 Conway, who objected to his valuation, £20 103 1 each for two properties, did not appear. Mr. > Kussell applied for costs. They had Mr. Wilf liamson, a professional valuer, present; and Mr. •j Aitken had also been employed to value the pro--2 perties. His Worship said he would apportion the cost. It was only fair that the Board should "■ not be put to the cost of retaining professional men.—John Coutt had his valuation 1 reduced by consent from £50 to £45.—William t Culpan did not appear to support his appeal 5 against his valuation of £10 and £1 for two pro- - prieties, and the valuation was sustained.— Reuben Dauby had lodged an objection to his assessment of £18. He did not appear. No alteration was made.—Samuel Davenport objected to the rate on .his property, but no grounds were stated, and it was not entertained. Costs allowed.—Edmonds and Co., who objected to excessive valuation, did not forward any notice of their objection to the Board, and the objection was not entertained.—lL J. Ellis did not appear to support his objectien against the assessment of * his property, and the objectiou was not sus--1 tained. Costs allowed.—The Gas Company objected to their valuation, and it was reduced by consent to £150.—C. H. Greenwood objectod to his assessment. It was reduced by consent from £200 to £175.—Alfred Grigs had his valuation reduced by conseut from £22 10s to £16 10s.—John Harper did not appear to support his objection to his valuation of £45. Costs allowed.—J. G. Henderson had not forwarded notice of his objection to the Board. Evidence to this effect was given by Mr. Hughes. <Josts were allowed.—Mr. A. Jenkins's objection was to tho effect that her name was not properly on the roll, and asked to have the nimo of John King substituted. The alteration was agreed to, Mr. King being tho lessee of the property.—Richard Jessop, objected to his valuation at £30, that being an increase from £26. H« did not appear to press his objection, and the valuation was sustained. —J. Scott Johnstone failed to appear. His valuation was reduced by consent from £25 to £20 10s.— Joseph Johnston, who was assessed at £25, objected that it was excessive. He did not appear, and no reduction was made. Costs were allowed.—James Kirk objected to the valuation of £20 as excessive. It was reduced by consent to £IS.—Robert Laing, and Jakina and Willcor l had given notice to the Board of their intention to object, but had failed to send any notice to the Court. In respect to Jakins and Willcox's objection to the valuation of the Ponsonby Hall on behalf of the company, Mr. Russell | applied for costs. The Court ruled that it could not entertain the applicatiou for costs, as there was in reality no objection at all before the Court. In both instances the appeals were . to the Board, not to the Court.—James Mixwell [ objected to his valuation. He did not appear, | and no reduction was made. Costs were granted. ( John Paddy objected to his valuation, £20 10s. He did not appear. Costs allowed.—William ' Payne had forwarded no notice of his objection * to the Board. He appeared to object to his valuation, £75, and claim a reduction. The Board declined to allow any reduction. The [ applicant claimed a reduction to £60, that being the full value of the property. He waa t cross-examined at some length. Mr. Hughes 5 and Mr. C. Williamson (land agent) deposed * that the property was worth £1500. It was in the very centre of the district, and Mr. Payne [ would have no difficulty in getting that money ! for it. The rate was ordered to stand. Costs J were allowed.—Edward Brenton Parsons had his assessment reduced from £75 to £65, by consent.—Thomas Port objected to his valuaL tion, £40 10s. He had been offered a reduction to £35, but refused to accept. The applicant was examined. He would let half of the house ! for £15 n-year, the other half he occupied ! himself. It was originally one house, but he | divided it, and made two entrances. £30 a-year . was the full value of the property. Iu cros&- | examination he said he was receiving 9i a-week for the portion which he did not occupy. The Court thought the offer to raduce it to £35 was a very fair one, and he made the reduction to that sum. Costs were . allowed.—William Raudell did not appear to ' support his objection to the increase in the 1 valuation of his property. The objection was [ not valid ; co3ts were allowed. —James £tich- > bury, who had appealed against the valuation of his property, did not appear. No alteration , was made in the list ; costs were allowed. , —Joseph A. Tole objected to be assessed as ! owner of the property for which he was assessed. Mr. Russell said the Board had not been | served with the notice iu due time. It was a day too late, and lie held that the objection was fatal. Mr. Tole said the objection had been made out in proper time, but it was not delivered, because Mr. Hughes was absent. The objection was a pure technicality. The question was argued at some length. Mr. Tole contended that the Board was not in any way prejudiced. Hi 3 Worship ruled that ifc was obligatory 011 the objector to send to the local body a copy of liis objection, at least seven days before the sitting of the Court, and it had not been doue in this instance, and the valuation must be sustained. This ruling applied to seven others which had been lodged by Mr. Tole. Iu regard to the objection to the valuation of St. Mary's Convent, a notice had not been sent to the Boiril. It was raised from £250 last year to £300 this year. Mr. Kussell applied for costs, but Mr. Tole contended that as his Worship had ruled that there was nothing before it, therefore there qould be no costs. Ic would be a strange dictum if he should be mulcted in costs when there was no cause before the Courc. Mr. Russell replied, and the Court made an order for costs in the cases. —C. Williamson objected to his valuation, and it was reduced to £16 10s from £22 lO.h, by consent of the Board, and a reduction in the cswe of Mr. Noah Wood of from £S0 to £63 was also consented to by the Board.—Ellen Kelly's application for a reduction from £20 10s to £16 10s was agreed to by the Board. —Peter K. Develin had his valuation reduced from £20 10s to £16 10s.—The costs were then apportioned. They amounted in all to £17 6s 6d, of which Mr. Tole's proportion is £S 3s Od, and the remainder proportionately divided at 13s each against those whose objections had not been sustained. The Court then rose.