ASSESSMENT COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 573, 4 March 1878, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

Mr. T. Yf. Parker, Judyeof the Assessment Court, lil'Ul ;i Court, to-day for the purpose <>f hearing and deU .■■"iiiininappeals against the asses-cn ■ 11vs ma !•; liy the Corporation. Valuator. T>ic following uppe;>Ji were ]ic;ii':l : -- Mr. E. .];>. Lirkin nj »] >;-:ili d \n \ug assessed fur pun. of section 11. h'ork 11., :is he was only ;i weekly tenant. —The appeal was declared informal on the ground that if was noi. si ;ti in in proper frr.'ii. Mr.' J. T. Evans air,,,.;)!,.,! against the assessment of L'.t7 "H sections 11. ami 12, hiock XOV., on the grounds that, the valuation was e.\C!ssiu\ and that, the nanus of the joint. < n-ci! pu'i'.s were omitted. The Council had previously agreed in a reduction of L7> and in

r. eiivy tlic oiiiis-*inii.— 'j'iiu 'Joml minced ill" auioiiiit" t ■ L7<>.

Mr. C. (>'. Moore, as attorney for Mr. kelkrt Edward.-!, app; alcil aeaius'. the valuation of Unplaced upon section 21. mock XXVJiI., on tie ground that it. was more than the value of the section. The assessment was defended. The amount io hi' reduced to Lfc>.

Messrs. L: es and Moon; appealed against their Uhcj: rated for sections !) to 14. Mock XXXIV., on the ground that iiiey are Hot the nv, nei s. - The names of l.he appellants Wel'e ordered (o lie struck our, and the name of .Mr. MM\eilar inserted in licit thereof.

Messrs. Lee;; and Moore appealed against the assessment of 1.1*18; on sections :> io 10, flock XOV., on i he -round t! at it was over the vaiite of tue property. The (Vttnoil had decided to defend llio valuation on the ground ilia!, according to the annual r> ntal, the assessment should lie LI 70. Tiie junoiml; was r. duced to LkiO.

Messrs. J. I'. Evans and On. appealed .trains! the assessment, of LI.",() on sections 1 ami 2, Mock XCV., llaslett's claim. The Council agn-a <1 to reduce the amount, to Ll2O. Tiio amount, as reduced l.y the Council, was sustained, and the assessment ItXed at Ll2O.

Messrs. Lies and Monro appealed ,aiust the valuation of L7o placed upon

I actions .'1 ;iiici -i, bloc!; XCV., ilaslrtt's j claim. Tiit! Valuation Was illfended. ! jJr. jioole siafcd that the valuator bad made a iiii.sf.'iki' i;i .si)j>jjh.siii.lj that the i-i!ic! and Mable wore in these .xccli ms. .Such was hot the ca.se, as they stood upon a, pic ce of ground -hull io tin hi by '. !;o < Jovi-riiiiioiit as compensation for poit tiiii.=s of seetioms •'< .'(lid 4 taken for railway purpo.s.•«. Tiny did no!, however, wish to escape paying rates for tins;; buildings, and were wilJiiiLj H orks. 'at.os for lin-iii in uoinn ction with tin; s< '.ions named, as tie buildings would othenvis" bo (iinii.l. (I altogether •mm the rate roll for tlie pres; nt year. Tlie assessment was reduced to LSO. .Messrs. Lees and Monro appealed a ,f iinst-tiii! assessment of L 75 on section 1, block XCV. The Council ha:l decided ;■> it) a reduction of LIO, and to d"fe:id the assessment to the extent of Lo~>. T amount-was reduced to L 47. }.lv. 'i'... mas Procter had lodged an appeal i;yii;.Ht the assessment of LSo on s 'e.ti";is 4 to 7 and 15 to 17, blook XXX! il. T::e Council agreed to the 1 amount beine; ivduced, to L 65. The appellant did n<jt appear 3 and the Council's decision wits upheld, J