MOA FLAT ESTATE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26311, 16 November 1946, Page 4

MOA FLAT ESTATE

BASIC VALUE DISPUTED

COURT RESERVES DECISION

The hearing of the appeals against the decision of the Otago Land Sales Committee in the case in which consent was sought for the sale of the Moa Flat Downs Estate, situated at Moa Flat, comprising 12,051 acres of freehold land, with a Crown lease of 2984 acres, together with buildings, was concluded before the Land Sales Court yesterday. Mr Justice Archer presided, and associated with him were Messrs E. Scott and W, Stewart. There were two appeals before the court, one by the vendors, Rewa Tuara Throp, and the Trustees Executors and Agency Company of New Zealand, Ltd., in fixing the basic value at £23,955 in lieu of the price of £27,500, at which the property had been sold, subject to the committee’s consent, to John Conington Smeeton, and the other by the Crowm. Mr A. C. Stephens appeared for the applicants, Mr R. V. Kay (Wellington) for the Crown, and Mr J. B. Deaker and Mr W. J. Meade for the beneficiaries. Crown’s Submissions

Mr Kay said that the Crown submitted that the best method of farming the property was to stock it with a Romney flock, which, it was contended would produce a better return from the wool and also an increased revenue from the sale of sheep for mutton, and he thought it was significant that a certain number of Romney rams had been introduced. The Crown also contended that its reward for management, which had been fixed at £7OO was in accord with a recent decision by the court. The total amount for labour had been put down at £1228 per annum. In the budget submitted on behalf of the vendors, the amount of labour had been assessed at £9BB, but provision. was made for certain work to be carried out by contract, this involving an additional expenditure of £560 a year. It was contended that the Crown's method if having all the. work done by the workers on the farm would be more economical and efficient. Dealing with the buildings, Mr Kay said there was a deficiency of £IOSO, the cost of a cottage that was considered to be necessary. It was also contended that the wool-shed would meet the needs of a much larger run than the one under consideration, and it was admitted in evidence by one of the witnesses for the vendors that he would not have built such a shed to-day. In conclusion, counsel said that the court was asked to fix the basic value of the freehold and buildings, plus the sum of £2OO for the lessee’s value in the lease. 1 Not Suitable for Romneys Mr Stephens commented that two experieced farmers, who had been living in the district for many years, had supported the vendors’ case and the methods of farming that had been adopted. The returns for the past five years showed that the place had been run at a profit. The budget had been based on a Wool average of 7.81 b, although the witnesses said that they could obtain a better average than that. The Crown had contended that better returns could be obtained from a Romney flock, but from the figures given in the Crown’s budget there would be 220 fewer sheep, and the earning capacity of the property would be £430 less. Mr Stephens said that the country was not suitable for Romney sheep. Dealing with the question of what would be a fair reward for the owner-manager of such a property, Mr Stephens said that the vendors’ budget had made an allowance of £675 for this item, including an allowance for expenses. Farmer’s Reward In reply to a question by his Honor, Mr Stephens said he agreed that a good farmer could expect to get more than £SOO, but he was strongly of the opinion that this should not be used to depreciate the value of the property and thus penalise the farmer for his efficiency. He added that they had been reproached because they wanted a certain amount of the/cultivation work to be carried out by contract, but he emphasised that this might prove the most efficient way of doing the work. He did not think there was any Justification for employing more than one married couple on the property. Mr Stephens said the vendors were certainly entitled to an allowance for the excess value of the wool shed, which was still in first-class order, as was shown by a witness for the Crown. In conclusion, he contended that the vendors were entitled to the full amount, pointing out that it was recognised that the property was recognised to be unequalled as a sheep run. The court reserved its decision.