ASSESSMENT COURT

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXVII, Issue 7876, 26 April 1902, Page 1

ASSESSMENT COURT

The adjourned objection by William Waddell to the assessment of his leasehold, section 9 of block 95, was taken yesterday afternoon before Major Keddell, S.M., the assessment being £62. Mr Newton appeared for "Mr Waddell and Mr Creagli for the Borough Council. Mr Newton submitted that the valuation was too high, judged toy the valuation of neighboring properties. Robins' was assessed at £4l, Dennison's at £52, and Brown'B at £SO. R. L. Role deposed that Dennison's was rated at £52. The rent was 25s a week. Witness thought the property was unoccupied for ut least sis months before Dennieon "took it. Rabins' assessment wa® £4l and the Federal Cycle Company's at £4B. He had .no doubt that was based on the rental. XJennison had two windows and Waddell one. Witness could not say whether the frontage of the Federal Company's premises on Thames street was larger than Waddell's. To Mr Creagh : Witness understood Mr Waddell to say in November last that his premises cost £ISOO. The values then fixed .by three valuators were: AUan's £776, Uentmell's £490, Waddell's £990, Robins' £585. Mr Dennison did not occupy the upper storey of the premises which were rated as Allan's. The rent of Dennison's was only the rent df the lower storey of the premises—2ss a wee!k. Mr White (6addier) paid B3s a week rent. Waddell's was valued on a rental of 30s a week. White's premises* were very much smaller than Waddell's —there was no comparison—and yet he (White) paid 23s a week. Robins' place was in. a very bad condition indead and could not be compared to Mr Wadddl's. Witness thought a fair valuation had been put on. Mr Waddell's. Snadden's premises which were not nearly as good as Waddell's, carried a rent of 25s a week. Bulleid's tailor's shop was rented at £2 a week and rates. To Mr Newton (re-examined): The whole of Dennison's premises were rated at

£52, though Dennison was paying all the • rent. Witness thought Waddell's worth more than £l3 a year more for renting purposes than. Dennison's. The rent White J was paying vr;us ridiculously high. D. Brown was rated at £SO a year. W. Waddell, the objector, deposed that his building, without fixtures cost £670. Allan's cost the same, but £IOO was added for-the double window, etc. In his opinion, Allan's hud a larger letting value than witness'. The Federal Company's frontage wis exactlv double witness'. He considered White's rent ridiculously high. D. Brown's was worth half as much again as White's, vet the latter paid the higher rent. To Mr'C'reagh : Witness could say on his I oath that Allan's property was in a? good repair as his. When at full steam witness employed between 25 and 30 hands. Tho depreciation .of property all round had lowered the value of witness" property. To Mr Xmrton : Mrs Allen was now getting 25s a week for what- before was let for £2 "10s or £2 15s. Joseph Moss, examined by Ml' Creagh, deposed that if Mr Waddell's property was hi? he should reckon it worth about 35s a week for renting purposes. The fame building on the other side would be worth £2 10.-" at least. •Xoimnn M. Hood, tsilor, Queen's Build, inirs, said lie paid £1 a week for the shop alone. His workshop was in Wear street and cosr another £1 a week. If the wev= together he thought they would have as much acc>mmodtuion as Mr Waddell's. Mr Creagh said ho thought the had made . it quite plain to the Court that the valua~ I tion put on Mr Waddell's premises was a fair and reasonable one. Mr Xewton s«id the opinions and theories of witnesses would not stand alongside the actual rent's obtainable. The premises next to Mr Waddell's had since the last assessment apparently depreciated 50 per cent, in lettable value. His Worship thought the valuation was in excess. There was no doubt the vahii--i of the premises had depreciated, and the valuation would be reduced to £57 a year.