PROPERTY-TAX VALUATION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 898, 17 May 1889, Page 29

PROPERTY-TAX VALUATION.

The sitting of the Board of Reviewers appointed to deal with objections to the propei*ty-tax valuations, was resumed on the Bfcli instant. The following cases were heard : LAMBTON WARD. Mr C. B. Izard, on behalf of H. B. Halswoll, objected to the valuation of LI2OO on two acres in Wesley-road. The Board reduced the amount LIOOO. A reduction of L 65 was made on another property of Mr Jlalswell’s, situate in Aurora-terrace, and assessed at L 365. THOENDON WARD. Mr Izard applied for a reduction on L 2683 on property owned by Mr H. B. Halswell in Hill-street, and of L 3940 on two acres in Murifliy-streeb, bub the Board declined to make any alteration. TE ARO WARD. The valuation of L 750 on an acre in Tasman-street was objected to by Mr Brown, on behalf of Mr W. H. Back. The Board declined to make any reduction. Brown and Reeves asked to have the assessment of L 2989 on some land situated at Newtown reduced. Mr Brown supported the objection. The Board reduced the amount to L 2600. R. P. Collins applied for a reduction of the valuation of L4OOO on the Albion Hotel, Courtenay-place. It was pointed out that the department had reduced the valuation oy LIOOO. The Board declined to make any reduction, and Mr Collins said it was a very unjust decision. The Chairman (Mr Pearce): You must not say that. Mr Collins, however, repeated the assertion. The Chairman asked where the constable was, and requested Mr Collins to leave tlie Court. Mr Collins having again expressed his opinion of the valuation, left the chamber. A reduction from Ll2O to LIOO was granted on property in Thompson-streeb, the leasehold interest of which is held by John Compton. On behalf of A. Halswell, Mr Brown objected to the assessment of L 376 on

land in Wallace-street, and obtained a reduction to L3OO.

The valuation of G. M. Kebbell’s property in Webb-street was reduced from L2OOO to LI6OO.

An application by C. W. Smith, on behalf of F. A. Luscombe, for a reduction of a valuation of L 675 on an acre in Wallace street was refused. An acre in the same street, also owned by Mr Luscombe, was reduced from L 752 to LSOO. Mrs A. Merry asked for a reduction of tlie valuation of L 165 on two properties in Webb-street, but the Board declined to accede to her request. Two other properties owned by Mrs Merry in Haining-street were reduced from L 65 to LSO and L 95 to LBO respectively. The valuations of L 250 on a property in Riddiford-street, owned by J. D. Murphy, and of LI 20 on a property in Wrightstreet, leased to Sir W. Buffer, were sustained. Mr C. A. Deacon, on behalf of Mr W. Nicholson, objected to tlie valuations of L 2300 and L 2020 on two properties in Cuba-street. Mr Deacon asserted that the excessive valuation of property was having a very bad effect, as owners, being under the impression that they could get the amount fixed by the property-tax officials, were offering their properties for sale, and in consequence of the large number of properties in the market, there was a steady decrease in values. Mr J. Ames (City Valuer), called on behalf of the objector, stated that the land was worth about L4O per foot. The Board refused to make any reduction. An application by C. J. Pharazyn for a reduction of the assessment of L 1220 on his property in Adelaide-road was refused. J. Hutchen, representing Stewart and Co., applied to have the valuations of L 1770 and LI9BO on properties in Vic-toria-street i educed, but the request was not entertained. Mr D. T. Stuart, on behalf of A. P. Stuart, objected to the valuations of L 2980 and L 1930 on properties at the Cubastreet extension, and of L 3140 on property in Manners-street. Mr J. Ames, who was called by the objector, valued the two properties in Cuba-street at L 2260 and L 1460, respectively, and the property in Manners-street at L 2460. The Board reduced the Cuba-street properties to L 2260 and L 1460, and the Manners-street to L 2650. Mr 0. W. Smith objected to the assessment of L 550 on property in Rintoulstreet, owned by Mrs E. J. Toomath. Valuation sustained. v COOK WARD. Mr C. A. Deacon applied for a reduction of the valuation of L 391 on property in Kent-terrace, owned by Miss Cooley. The Reviewers reduced the amount to L 360. Hugh Curry objected to the valuation of L 695 on his property in Courtenayplace, on the ground that the erection of the gasometer had depreciated the value of it, and that the building was an old one. The Board reduced the amount to L 550. Joseph Hyde contested the assessment of L 350 and L 896 on his properties in Austin-street. The valuations were reduced to L3OO and LBOO respectively. An objection to the valuation of L 2150 on property in Sussex square was made by Mr J. Liehtschiendl. Valuation sustained. Mr C. W. Smith, on behalf of A. Luscombe, applied for a reduction of the valuation of LB9l on eleven properties in Brougham and Moir-streets. The Board reduced the valuation to LBOO. J. Merry applied for a reduction of valuations of LBS, LB6 (two properties), and L9l on properties in North street. The first three were reduced to LSO each, and the latter to L6O. The valuation on four other properties owned bj r the same person were sustained. They were as follow :—L2OO, Allan-street ; LIOS, Cam-bridge-avenue ; L 125, Grainger-street ; and LlB5, Barker-street. Mrs A. Merry obtained a reduction from LB6 to LSO on a property in North-street. The valuation was sustained on four other properties owned by Mrs Merry, as follow :—L445, Courtenayplace ; L 212 and L 125, Grainger street ; and LBl, North-street. A reduction from L 1250 to LIOOO was made in the valuation of a section in Sussex-square, the property of Major Dean, who was represented by Mr E. Pearce (who retired from the Bench during the hearing of the objection). This concluded the business, and the Board then rose.