SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5732, 30 October 1905, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

ANOTHER QUESTION OF LAND ASSESSMENT. | His Honor tho Chief Justice, sitting in Chamohre on Saturday, delivered judgment in the matter Ward Brothers i and the Valuer-General of Land. This ■ was an application for a rule nisi for : a certiorari calling upon tho Valuer- 1 General of the Colony to return into i the Court an assessment made by him of i part of section 13. Hutt district, on tho ! grounds (1) that the valuation wan > made without authority of law, or (2) in excess of tho authority of law, owing to tho capital value being based upon wbat neighbouring lands have recently realised when cut up for building purposes during the course of an exceptional land boom, instead of being assessed, so far as the interests of tho applicants are concerned, upon tho capital value based upon tho interest of tho applicants under a lease which restricts tho applicants from tho user of tho land otherwise than for farming purposes. His Honor said that in England, in valuing land, the use to which the land was put or might bo put was considered, and in such a case as this tho land would bo valued as what it is—•farming land. Here, however, English precedents in legislating on taxation or on land assessment did not hold. The question was, what did our Land {Assessment and Government Valuation Acts provide? Tho applicants wore the lessees of a block of land SI acres in extent in the Hutt district. The lease began in 1897, and bad yet seven years to run. Tho rent was £l5O per annum, and tho lessees had to pay all rates and taxes; also land tax on tho value of their interest, as assessed. The Valuer-Gen-eral stated that tho rents and taxes would amount to about £3 per acre annually. Tho terms of tho lease prohibited tho lessees from using the land for anything but farming purposes. If tbo mode of levying taxation had been on the annual letting value, perhaps there would not harm been heard tho ‘complaints made by tho applicants; but tile rating was on unimproved value, anti that value bad been ascertained, apparently without reference to the loaso and tho lessees’ interests, but solely on tho price the land would fetch in tho market. There was an objection to the assessment, and tho Court reduced the valuation from £l3O per acre to £SO per acre, that was from £10,920 to £0720. An appeal might have been taken to tho Supremo Court, with the leave of tbo President of tbo Court, but that tbo Valuer-General took proceedings under tho Government Valuation. Act of 1900, section 30 of which is made applicable to valuations under tho Government Valuation of Lant.s Act Amendment Act, 1900, section 30. Ihe Valuer-General increased tho assessmont of tho nuiniprovccl value to £llO per aero, and the improvements wore oply valued at £100; so that, for land that could only bo used for farming purposes, because of tlio forms of the lease, tho applicants paid local rates on £llO per acre. Tho landlords were assessed at £7-100 unimproved value, and their land tax would bo about £3O, or ono-ftfth of their rent —and no doubt four shillings in the pound was a heavy income tax. Tho applicants’ landlords agreed'to this valuation; if they had not done so the Government could have acquired tho land at that value. Tho result was that tho lessees had to pay local rates on a value which tho Assessment Court reduced, and regarding tho fixing of which the lessees had really no redress. Tho freehold of tho property was not theirs, and even if tho value was fixod at an amount far above its real value the lessees had neither right of appeal nor right to object under tbo Government Valuation of Land Amendment Act, 1900. His Honor found, however, that the jurisdiction and power of tiie Valuer-General to fix the value could not bo controlled by tlio Supremo Court, and as tbo freeholders had consented to tho value the leaseholders had no redress. If tho two acts under winch the Valuer-General proceeded there was no reference to any standard of land values, but what tho land might soli for; and his Honor could not, therefore, Ray_ that tlio Valuer-General bad acted without jurisdiction. If tho proceedings seemed harsh to the applicants, redress must bo sought from tlio Legislature; this Court could only interpret the statutes, not amend them. Air Jellicoe asked leave under the Order-in-Council to appeal to tho Pnvy Council. His Honor said he would facilitate tho appeal by formally refusing tbo present application, which would enable the applicant to apply to the Privy Council for special leave. A WANGANUI WILL CASE. On Saturday morning his Honor the Chief Justice, sitting in Chambers, heard an application in the matter of tho Hon Robert Pharazyn’s trustees v. Lloyd. Tbo question arose under Air Pbarazyn’s will whether a Airs Worgan, widow, of Wanganui, took an annuity with an assignable interest; or whether tho trustees of tho will were not bound to declare that out of the annuity suffi-

cient provision was made for tho maintenance of Mrs AV'organ and her unmarried daughters. It appeared that some little time ago, Airs AVorgan, being in financial difficulties, assigned the annuity, with the consent of her daughters. to Air Lloyd, a solicitor, of AVanganui, in trust for her creditors. His Hanoi- reserved judgment. Air Jcllicoe appeared for tho trustee, and Air Von Haast for the assignee.