Board of Review.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1056, 26 May 1892, Page 34

Board of Review.

The Board of Reviewers under the Land and Income Assessment Act held their first silting in the jury room of tbe Supreme Court house on Thursday morning. The Board consisted of Messrs E. Pearce (chairman), J. H. Heaton and Hy. Jackson, Mr C. M. Crom. bie, Commissioner, being present on behalf of the Department. WELLINGTON ROAD DISTRICT. (Assessor, Mr J. D. Baird.) Th'e following objections were dealt with : Wm. Henry Barrow, Porirua, 15 acres, assessed at £75. Objector contended that the land was only worth £3 an acre. Valuation sustained. James Pearce. Pahautanui, 269 acres, assessed at £1694, reduced to £1490, improvements to remain at £SS7Edward Murphy, Pahautanui, 120 acres, valued at £IOBO (improvements, £760), reduced to £9SO. Stephen Flighty, Pahautanui, 100 acres valued at £79o.—Mr Flighty said he thought £6OO would be quite sufficient. The last valuation was £6SO. Reduced to £iso, and value of improvements reduced from £490 to £450.

Archibald Flighty, 221 acres, assessed at £1654 (improvements, £99l', reduced to £ISOO ; improvements reduced to £837Mary Abbott, 200 acres, valued at £2125 (improvements, £1525). Mr Bkerrett appeared for Mrs Abbott, and suggested that the assessment should be reduced to £1750, the amount of the last valuation, improvements being reckoned at £llsO, leaving the unimproved value at £6OO, as before. Nothing had been spent on improvements since the last valuation. Reduced by £2OO being taken off the value of the improvements. Roderick Mulbern, 265 acres at Pahan* tanui, assessed at £1667 (improvements, £1002) ; reduction asked to £1457. Also £lO acres leasehold, assessed at £703, the leaseholder’s interest being assessed at £2OO. This latter was reduo id by consent to £603 ; the other valuation was sustained. William Beach, 370 acres at Ohariu, assessed at £4OOO (improvements, £1846) ; valuation sustained. JOHNSONViLLE TOWN DISTRICT. (Assessor, Mr J. D. Baird.) H. L. Greer, 1 rood 6 perches, assessed at £135 (improvements, £7O) ; valuation sustained. MAKARA ROAD DISTRICT. ( Assessor, Mr J. D. Baird.) Maiy Humphries, 115 acres, valued at £1230 (improvements, £605) ; valuation sustained. _ , Amelia Prendeville, 57 acres, valued at £SOO (improvements, £328); improvements reduced by consent by £BO. Henry Monaghan, 106 acres, assessed. at £694 (improvements, £378) ; valuation sustained. ACCOMMODATION. The Chairman stated that his Worship the Mayor had placed the Council Chamber at tho disposal of the Board for the public sftting, and the Mayor’s room for private meetings of the Board. MANAWATCT RAILWAY COMPANY. The first valuation of the Manawatu Railway line was that in the Horokiwi riding, assessed at £59,310, at the rate of £3OOO per mile. Mr Crombie said it was not intended by the Company to pursue any objection except in regard to tbe assessment of the railway line. — Mr Travers, who appeared for the Company, contended that tho railway line was exempt from assessment and taxation for the purposes cf the land and income tax. Section 16 of the Act, sub-section J. Stated that any "public railway, including land occupied and used as a permanent way, and that used for yards, buildings. &c., was exempt. This was a public railway to all intents and purposes ; it was regulated by Act of Parliament, and the Compauy therefore c'aimed that the railway was absolutely exempt from taxation, although it might be that there was some function impased under the new Act upon the Commbsioners to prepare a form of return of valuation to be used by local bodies.—Mr Crombie admitted at this point that the railway was exempt from the land tax, and added that it w.-is understood when the Act was passiug through the House that this wa3 a public railway.—Mr Travers further contended that a railway line put upon the land was not what would be termed an improvement within the meaning of the Act. Tho land was in no sense improved, and putting tho line down wa3 merely tho meaus by which the object for using the land was effected. Tho word improvements was associated only with such additional value as was given to the land by cultivation, planting, and such ether improvements as conduce to giving the laud a greater vs'ue ; and he asked what additional value was given to this piece of land as land by putting these rails npon it ? -Mr Crombie asked whether Air Travers claimed that tho whole of this property was exempt? —Air Travers replied that it was exempt from assessment under the Land and Income Tex Act, but it was not exempt from a return to be made by the Commissioner to the local bodies for local taxation.— -Mr Crombie .- Do you meant that any of the land we have assessed on which the line is running is liable to assessment ? —Mr Travers ; I understand the railway is exempt.—Mr Crombie : It is assessable under this Act. —The Chairman remarked that they were dealing with the land tax. If it was exempt under the Land Tax Act, where, he asked, was the power of assess, ment ?—Mr Crombie replied that it was not exempt under the Rating Act, it was exempt from the land tax. There was a great difference between the two. —Mr Travers again contended that it was only’assessable on such improvements as were within the meaning of the Act. Air Crombie there, fore must be limited to the fee simple value of the land itself. His assessment included the permanent way, which must bo exempt. After some further discussion, Mr Travers admitted that the line was assessable for the purpose of local taxation under the Railway Act, 1882, but contended that the question for the Reviewers was merely one of value, on tbe ground that the basis of assessment was fixed by the Act, and the yalu§ it by ths contraction of

the railway upon the land, and its use was not an improvement within the meaning of the Act. The Company also agreed that if the permanent way and so forth came within the definition of improvements, the valuation of £3030 a mile was not excessive.—Mr Travers subsequently pointed out that the assessment was on the improvements alone, and that no unimproved value of the land was mentioned in the valuation. —Ultimately the Board decided that they could not see their way to altering the valuation, whioh would therefore be sustained.—There were several other objections filed by the Company, but they agreed to take the above as a test, and abide by the Board’s decision in regard to it. EPUNI RIDING, MUNGAROA AND WAINUI-O-MATA. (Assessor, Mr H. G’Caliogh»n.) Chaa. Lett, of Pakaratahi, 226 acres, assessed at £1315. Reduced by consent to £IOOO. . Alfred Luscombe, Akatarawa, 199 acres 1 rood 24 parches, assessed at £4lO (im« provements £210). Objector asked that the unimproved value of the value of the land should be reduced by £IOO. Valuation upheld. Mary Palfrey, 94 acres, Riinut&ka, assessed at £IOOO, and reduced by consent to £9OO. The Board adjourned at 5 o’clock to 11 o’clook.next morning at the Counoil Chamber. The Board resumed its sitting on Friday iin the Council Chamber, and dealt with the ■following objections —■■ HUTT BOROUGH Edward Whitehead, S acres in the middle •of the borough, £1520 (improvements, £620). Reduction asked to £I2OO. —Reduced to £1320 (improvements, £520). Henry Southern, 8 acres, Upper Wai•wetu, £605. Reduction asked to £5lO •(improvements, £110). —Reduced to £565. James Knight, 50 acres, part of section "26, £3575 (improvements, £800). Reducvtion asked to £27ss.—Valuation sustained. Ward Bros., tenants of 80 acres, Waiwetu ’(next racecourse), £3050. —Reduced to r£24JO. ...... George Allen, 15 acres, part of section 14, 'Waiwetu, £1450 (improvements, £450. —■ Valuation unstained. HOTEL VALUATION. J. Stooles and Co., for Central Hotel, IHutt, assessed at £3OOO (improvements, -£1000). —Mr Skerrett, who appeared for the -Company, asked that the unimproved value ibe reduced to £7OO, and impressed upon the Board that the law did not allow the ■license to be taken into consideration in -valuing hotel property. —Mr Martin Kennedy, Managing Director of the Company, -was called, and deposed that he valued the -.property at £ISOO ; he did not think they would get that sum for it without a license. Keplving to the Assessor (Mr H. W. Potter), said the hotel might be insured for ;£IOOO, but that did not guarantee that it -was worth that amount!. —Mr G. F. Campbell, of the Land Tax Department, stated ithat instructions were given to the Assessors •to value properties at their selling value as a going concern. The fact of a hotel having a license would no doubt enhance its value as a going concern, and would be, therefore, considered in estimating its value. The Board upheld the valuation. . E. J. Riddiford, 1 acre 38 perches, Alicetown, £l9B. Mr Scales, who appeared for the objector, asked for a reduction to £l2O. Reduced accordingly by consent. Henry Eglington, half aore, £3O. Reduced to £23. .. . T Martha Hobbs, two properties at Lower Hutt, assessed at £990 and £605 respectively. Reduced by oonsent to £B9O and £505. BOROUGH OF RETONE. There was a long list oE objections to the valuations in this Borough, but none of the objectors appeared. BOROUGH OP ONSLOW. C. B. Halsweil, 101 acres, Kaiwarra ; assessment £707 (no improvements). Reduction asked for to £607. Mr C. B. Izard appeared for the owner, who is absent from the Colony. The valuation was adjusted as follows £707 (improvements, £100). Henry Trout, 13 perches ; valuation £320 (improvements, £300). Reduction asked to £250. Valuation reduced to £250 (improve, ments, £225). Trustees of the late Hon W. B. Rhode’, the Grange Estate, Wadestown; 132 acres, valuation £17,195 (improvements, £3000). The Chairman (Mr E. Pearce) left the chair during the hearing of this objection, remarking that he was one of the trustees, and thought it would not be right to tit as a Reviewer while the Board was dealing with the objection. The estate was valued in six lots, and a total reduction of £2250 was asked for. Mr A. E. Rowden appeared in support of the objection, and called Mr J. C McKerrow, who made the valuation of the estate in 188 S for the property tax, and stated his opinion that the valuation saould be reduced.—Mr E. Pearce also expressed a Bimilar opinion, addiog, however, that he hoped the Boarc would ignore his position as a Reviewer* and treat the case on its merits.—Reductions we e made amounting to £llOO off improvements, and £855 off tbe unimproved value. . J. Staples and Co., hotel at Kaiwarra, £ISOO (improvements, £1000). Mr Kennedy withdrew his objection on account of the decision come to by tbe Bench in the Hutt Jos. Holmes, 22 perches at Kaiwarra, £705 (improvements, £310). Valuation reduced by £SO ; improvements to remain as before. „ . John Newton, half an acre, Kaiwarra, £SSO (improvements, £600). deduction asked for of £2oo.—Valuation sustained. The hearing of an objeotion by the Manawatu Railway Company to the valuation of that portion of the line iu the Onalow Borough, amounting to £71,172, was postponed. An arrangement will probably be oome to between the Commissioner and Mr Wallace. BOEOrGH OF KARORI. Thomas Lewers, lot 45, £796 (improvements, £100.) Reduction asked to £7OO (improvements, L3OO.) —Valuation adjusted, £796 : improvements, £200.) Same, part of lot 41, £375 (improvements

£3oo.)—Reduced to £3OO (improvements, £250.) John Burrows and others, 114 acres, Karori, £1360 (improvements, £140.) Mr C. H. Izard appeared for objectors, and asked for reduction to £llOO (improvements, £4OO )—Valuation adjusted.£l3Bo (improvements, £340,) Oscar Lewera, 23 acres at Karori, £940 (improvements, £220), Reduction asked, £9GO (improvements, £570). Valuation adjusted, £945 (improvements, £420). Patrick Monaghan, 120 acres, £2660 (improvements, £860). Reduction asked to £2400. —Reduction granted. W. J. Monaghan, 4S acres Karori, £1360 (improvements, £400). Valuation sustained. ■MELROSE BOROUGH. John Compton, 1 acre 3 roods 24 perches at Kilbirnie, £lso.—Valuation sustained. Mrs Compton, 1 quarter.acre at Kilbirnie, £4O. —Valuation reduced to £25. John Compton, 7 sections, Vogeltown, £75. —Valuation sustained. J. A. Heginbotham, 5 sections at Kilbirnie, £9OO (improvements £600). Reduction asked to £850.) —Redaction granted. Staples and Co., Island Bay Hotel, £IBOO (improvements, £1000). Reduction asked to £1350. —Valuation adjusted, £1350 ; improvements, £9OO. The Board adjourned at 5 40 p.m. until Monday at 11 a.m. The Board of Review sat at 2 p.m. on Mon. day for the purpose of hearing objections to valuations iu the Thorndon and Cook Wards. THE PATENT SLIP. The Chairman (Mr E. Pearce) stated that the Department desired that he and Mr Heaton should adjudicate upon this valuation, notwithstanding that he was a shareholder and Mr Heaton was Mayor of the Borongh of Melrose, in which part of the property was situated. The only question for consideration was as to the appointment

—as to what was within the borough and what was without. He called upon Mr Potter, the assessor, to state the facts of the case, Mr H. W. Potter said there were 20J acres of land above high water mark, valued at £IOOO ; four cottages, £800; four sheds, £SOO ; 4J chains of construction of tramway, £6OOO ; excavations, £SOO ; fencing and sundries for shipbuilding purposes, £4OO ; total, £9200 above high water mark. Outside the borough, if it was so taken : - Jetty, £650 ; construction, 11J chains, £11,500; land, &e., £SOO ; total, £12,650, making a grand total of £-21,850. Then Mr Riohardson, engineer, and himself agreed to take £2850 off for depreciation, leaving a total of £19,000. Iu answer to Mr Heaton, the assessor said that last year Melrose took £IO,OOO. —The Chairman then announced that tbe Mayor of the borough and himself had agreed to allow the valuation for local rating to remain the same as it was last year—£lo,ooo within the borough, £9030 outside, it th-r department would accede to that arrangement. —The Commissioner announced his agreement. THORNDON WARD. (Mr W. Miller, Assessor.) Tbe following objections were dealt with^: —C. T. Richardson, Thorndon quay, 39ft frontage by 105 ft depth, £390 (improvements £9O). Objector asked that bis improvements should bo valued at £275. — Valuation sustained. Trustees of Joseph Burns estate, part of section 549, Tinakori load, two properties, valued respectively at £450 (improvements £250) and £4OO (improvements £200). Reduction to £165 on the unimproved value asked for in each case.—Valuation sustained. H. Wilcox, town acres 524 and 525, £l2lO (improvements £380) and £SBO (improvements £220). —Valuation sustained. C. F. Barraud, leasehold interest in a shop in Molesworth street, £IOOO.

Reduction asked to £7OO. Reduced to £BOO.

Richard Duignan, tenant’s iutarest in town acre 545, £BO. Redaction asked to £4o.—Reduced to £SO. John R. Smith, town acre 544, Pipitea street, £7OO (improvements £400). Reduc* tion asked to £l3O on the unimproved valuß. —Valuation sustained. G. Judd, town acre 519, Tiuakori road, £IOO (improvements £75). Objector asked that the valuations should be reversed, whioh the Board agreed to. Same, ou another section, £IOO (improvements £SO). Valuation arranged £l5O (improvements £75). Trustees in Joseph Burns’ estate, town acre 473, in Bolton street, £470 (improvements £190). Reduction of £ll7 asked for. —Reduced to £260. COOK WARD. (Mr W. Miller, Assessor.) . Alfred Luscombe, town acre 295, Brougham street, £895. Reduction asked to £7OO. — Reduced by consent to £BSO. The session only lasted one hour and 20 minutes, very many objectors failing to put in an appearance.