PROPERTY TAX.—EDEN COUNTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9378, 30 May 1889, Page 5

PROPERTY TAX.—EDEN COUNTY.

The Board of Reviewers again sat yesterday for the purpose of hearing objections to valuations of property. Present: Mr. S. Y. Collins (in the chair), Messrs. F. R. Claude and J. Newman.

Ponsonby. — The hearing of objections to valuations in tins ward was resumed. Mr. Thomas Slator appeared as valuer. William Thdrne, assessed at £300 for property of 1£ acres in Marine Parade, and unoccupied. Reduced to £250. Ho objected to the assessment of £197 on threequarters of an acre on Marine Parade. Reduced to £i 75. Another objection was to the valuation of £303 on another property, and it was reduced to £300. In several other cases Mr. Thorne withdrew his objections. William Adams, Jervois Road, for whom Mr. J. S. Duke appeared, objected that the property was not his. This was ' transferred to William Adams, of Grey-street, who objected to the valuation of £130 for the allotment in College Road. Reduced to £100. William Adams, of Jervois Road, objected to the assessment of £450 for a house and allotment in Jervois Road. Reduced to £400. Another objection was to a valuation of £145 on a property in Prospectstreet. Reduced to £100. The next objection was to an assessment of £800 on a property, comer of Jervois Road and Wal-lace-street. It appeared that there was a mistake in the measurement of the frontage, but the valuation was sustained. The next objection was to the assessment of £270 on a property in Emmetfc-sfcreet. Reduced to £200. William Adams, of Grey-street, objected to the assessment of £150 ona property fronting Costloy-streeb. Reduced to £130. Mr. J. B. Graham appearrd for Kate Shoeban and Elizabeth Graham in support of an objection to the assessment of £220 on property in Jervois Road. Reduced to £132. He also objected to another adjoining property at £200. Valuation sustained. Another property, assessed at £75, was reduced to £50. Thomas Ussher, assessed at £40 for an allotment in Douglas-street, objected. Reduced to £25. William Parker, for whom Mr. Ussher appeared, objected to the assessment of £350 on preperty in Vermont-street. Reduced to £300. Thomas L. Drummond, for whom Mr. Duke appeared, objected to the assessment of £975 on a property at the corner of Wood and Arthur-Btreeb. Reduced to £900.

Eden Terrace Road District.Mr. Thomas Seaman, assessor, appeared in support of his valuations. Mr. J. Batger, on behalf of the Auckland Building Society, objected to the valuation of £136 on a property in Charlotte street. They were willing to take £40 for it. It had been offered for sale, and the highest bid was £36. Reduced to £50. He also appealed against the assessment of £196 on an adjoining property. Reduced to £150. A third property, assessed at £280, wt-s reduced to £240. Mr. J. Batger, for himself, objected to the assessment of £2400 on his property, Mount Eden Road. Reduced to £1800. Charles Laßoche, assessed at £95 and £130 for properties, Victoria Avenue, objected. A reduction of £40 had been ottered, but was not accepted. He bought the two properties three years ago for £30, and .was willing to take that for them now. They were leasehold properties, and the owner's value was £140. Reduced to £75 for both. C. W. Erupson, for whom Mr. McCormick appeared, objected to the assessment of £283 on leasehold property in Victoria Aveuue. A reduction of £83 had been allowed by the Commissioner, but this was not accepted. The assessment at £200 was sustained. Mary Jane Gilbert, for whom Mr. Gilbert appeared, assessed at £80 for property in Haslett-street, objected. A reduction of £20 had been allowed by the Commissioner, but this was not accepted. The £60 assessment was sustained. James R. Gaacoigne, assessed at £50 for a property in Eden-street, appealed. A reduction of £20 had been allowed by the Commissioner, but this was not accepted. Reduced to £20. C. Burke, assessed at £320, for property New North Road, objected. A reduction of £45 was allowed by the Commissioner, and a reduction to £275 was made. M. A. Rattray, assessed at £160 on lessees' interest in property in Evelyn-street, objected. The lease was, in fact, an annual loss to her, so that the lessee's interest was worse than valueless. The owner's assessment was only £100. Reduced to £60. Win. Henry Haslett, assessed at £1075 for two properties on New North Road, objected. Reduced by consent to £1000. He abo objected to the assessment of £270 on live vacant allotments in Haslett-street. The valuations were respectively £60, £100, £50, £30, and £30, and he claimed that thev should all be valued at £30 each. The property was vacant, and he was willing to sell at that price. Another property on which there was a house was assessed at £225, and to this he also objected. The Court decided to tako them separately. The assessment of £225 on property in Coupland-street was reduced to £210. Another assessment of ! £120 for three allotments in Haslett-street , was reduced to £60. The assessment of £50 was sustained ; the £100 valuation was also sustained. One of the £30 valuations was reduced to £20, and the other was sustained. The £60 valuation was reduced to £40. E. M. Browning, assessed at£lso for property in Ethel-street, appealed. The appellant, as lessee, was assessed at £100, and the owner at £50. The lessee's interest was reduced to £50. Eliz. Webster, assessed at £650, for property in New North Road, appealed. Mr. Webster appeared to sustain the objection, and said he was prepared to offer the property to the Government for £550. Reduced to £600. Watson & Murray, assessed at £450, appealed, and Mr. Duke appeared in support of the objection. The property was in Summers and Rowe-streets. The valuation was sustained. William Monaghan, assessed at £140 for property in Charlotte-street, objected. A reduction of £40 had been allowed by the Commissioner, but a further reduction was claimed. It was a leasehold property. Reduced to £50. Mr. Monaghan also appealed against the assessment of £190 on property in Summer-street. A reduction of £20 was allowed by the Commissioner, but this was not accepted. Reduced to £150. Mr. Alex. R. Watson, assessed at £500 for property in Suffolk-street, appealed, and Mr. Bell appeated to support the objection. He was prepared to accept £250 for the whole property, and, in fact, would take less. Reduced to £250. There was another property in Edeu-street, valued at £200, against which Mr. Watson appealed, and said he was prepared to take £50 for the property. Reduced to £100.